Skip to main content
AI Choice Engine

Model comparison

Gemini 3.7 Flash vs Qwen 3.8 Flash Next

Google against Qwen, compared on context, price, and attributed benchmark results.

Gemini 3.7 Flash: profile checked October 25, 2026Qwen 3.8 Flash Next: profile checked October 25, 2026Individual provider fields may changeEvidence confidence: Insufficient data — see receipts below

Google

Gemini 3.7 Flash

Budget

vs

Qwen

Qwen 3.8 Flash Next

Budget · Open weights

AI model capability comparison
SpecificationGemini 3.7 FlashQwen 3.8 Flash Next
ProviderGoogleQwen
TierBudgetBudget
Context windowWinner: 1.05M262K
Max output66KNot verifiedUnverified
Input / 1M tokensNot verifiedUnverified$0.15
Output / 1M tokensNot verifiedUnverified$0.47
WeightsClosedOpen
ParametersNot verifiedUnverified125B main / 6B active (MoE) + 51B n-gram table + 4B MTP
Reasoning levelslow, medium, highlow, medium, xhigh
Modalitiestext, image, video, audio, pdftext, image, video
LicenseNot verifiedUnverifiedQwen Community License 1.0
API model idgemini-3.7-flashqwen3.8-flash
ReleasedAugust 13, 2026Not verifiedUnverified
Terminal-Bench 2.1 · source date Gemini 3.7 Flash: 2026-0885.8Not verifiedUnverified
DeepSWE 1.1 · source date Gemini 3.7 Flash: 2026-0865.3Not verifiedUnverified
HLE-Verified · source date Gemini 3.7 Flash: 2026-0853.6Not verifiedUnverified
Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index · source date Qwen 3.8 Flash Next: 2026-10-01Not verifiedUnverified40

Dates beside benchmark scores refer to the linked source’s publication or capture date unless that source explicitly states when it measured the result. A shared URL alone does not establish comparable runs; unverified setups are marked. Prices are USD per million tokens at standard rates, excluding batch and caching discounts. Values we could not confirm from the provider are shown as “Not verified” rather than estimated.

Benchmark receipts

Where each score comes from, and how far it can be compared across models.

Pricing tiers

Gemini 3.7 Flash: No separate current first-party tariff for the original checkpoint is published. The deprecated API ID routes to gemini-3.8-flash; consult that successor's exact current tier, cache and dated introductory conditions. Historical prices and benchmarks are not a current independent offer for Gemini 3.7 Flash.

Qwen 3.8 Flash Next: Hosted qwen3.8-flash on Model Studio International lists USD/MTok input/output $0.15/$0.47; Beijing and Global rows list $0.113/$0.382. QwenCloud marketplace separately quotes implicit/explicit cache reads $0.016 and explicit creation $0.20. Hosted cards list 1M context and 131K maximum response; these are not native limits or self-hosting costs. The checkpoint has 262,144 native context, extensible to 1,000,000 with appropriate serving configuration. Recommended output budgets are not a hard native cap.

BudgetRecord checked October 25, 2026

Gemini 3.7 Flash

Historical Gemini 3.7 Flash profile retained for original model references and benchmark configurations; its old API ID now routes to Gemini 3.8 Flash.

Best for

  • Historical model and benchmark references
  • Planning migration from the deprecated API ID

Watch out

Original model specifications below are historical reference limits. Since October 8, 2026 API calls to this ID serve Gemini 3.8 Flash; use the successor ID explicitly. Do not attribute the successor's performance or prices to this original checkpoint. Existing benchmark observations keep their measurement dates and configuration.

BudgetOpen weightsRecord checked October 25, 2026

Qwen 3.8 Flash Next

Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is Alibaba's multimodal hybrid-attention MoE, with 6B active language-model parameters and a separate n-gram embedding component.

Best for

  • Open-weight agent workflows
  • Hosted low-cost work
  • Multimodal input

Watch out

Exact weight-publication day remains unverified. Native low/medium/xhigh defaults to xhigh; non-thinking and preserved thinking are supported. Separate licence required for commercial MaaS or independent coding/office AI Work Assistant businesses, including affiliates, with an internal-use exception and mere-relay exclusion. That clause has no revenue floor; it differs from the 2.4T licence. Model-name UI attribution applies above 100M monthly active users or US$20M monthly revenue. Hosted regional limits, Batch eligibility and tariffs belong to their named routes.

When the cheaper one wins

One of these rows is missing a verified output price, so this page will not name a cheaper winner. Run the model picker against the actual job instead of guessing.

Run the model picker

Evidence confidence: Insufficient data

How strong and complete the evidence behind this comparison is — not a prediction of which model is better. Hard limitations apply: missing pricing; evidence too sparse.

  • Pricing incomplete — No verified token pricing for Gemini 3.7 Flash.
  • 2/5 core specs verified on both sides — Not published for at least one side: max output, release date, parameter count.
  • No directly aligned benchmark setup — No benchmark has matching cited sources, source dates, units, effort and recorded run details on both models.
  • Verified within the last 90 days — Older of the two catalog checks was 1 day ago.
  • Both models carry source citations — Each side has at least two catalog sources on record.

Source receipts

Each catalog figure was checked against the provider or an independent second source on the date shown.

Related comparisons

Diving deeper on one model? Gemini 3.7 Flash · Qwen 3.8 Flash Next

Common questions

Gemini 3.7 Flash vs Qwen 3.8 Flash Next

Answered from the verified figures on this page rather than general guidance.

Which has the larger context window, Gemini 3.7 Flash or Qwen 3.8 Flash Next?
Gemini 3.7 Flash accepts 1.05M tokens against 262K for Qwen 3.8 Flash Next. This only matters if you routinely send very long documents or large codebases.
Do Gemini 3.7 Flash and Qwen 3.8 Flash Next support the same reasoning levels?
Gemini 3.7 Flash exposes low, medium, high, while Qwen 3.8 Flash Next exposes low, medium, xhigh.
Should I use Gemini 3.7 Flash or Qwen 3.8 Flash Next?
Both are classified in our budget tier; this editorial grouping does not imply equal capability. Gemini 3.7 Flash is a candidate for historical model and benchmark references; Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is a candidate for open-weight agent workflows. Compare accuracy, tool reliability, latency and cost on representative tasks.
Can I self-host Gemini 3.7 Flash or Qwen 3.8 Flash Next?
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next publishes open weights, but self-hosting and third-party provider access depend on the licence, hardware, serving support, and availability. Gemini 3.7 Flash is a closed model whose supported access paths are controlled by its provider.

Next step

Choosing between them

The verified figures that separate this pair, computed from the catalog rather than restated boilerplate.

  • Context: Gemini 3.7 Flash takes 1.05M against 262K for Qwen 3.8 Flash Next — only decisive if your prompts approach the smaller window.
  • Deployment: Qwen 3.8 Flash Next publishes weights you can self-host; the other is API-only.
Run the model pickerEstimate stack costAll model comparisons

Choosing a harness rather than a model — Cursor, Copilot, Claude Code, Windsurf, or Lovable? Compare agentic harnesses · Latest releases.