Coding
Like-for-like- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- 55.1
- Qwen3.8-27B
- 61.7
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Qwen3.8-27B leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash vs Qwen3.8-27B
Updated August 14, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
5 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Which one for your work
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Qwen3.8-27B
Qwen3.8-27B leads on the same 1 weighted benchmark row.
Confidence: limited
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Gemini 3.5 Flash has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
18 Gemini 3.5 Flash only
5 Shared
22 Qwen3.8-27B only
- Shared results
- 5
- Gemini 3.5 Flash only
- 18
- Qwen3.8-27B only
- 22
- Like-for-like categories
- 1 / 8
3 categories use different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.
Agentic
Directional only- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- 77.2
- Qwen3.8-27B
- 84.3
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Knowledge
Directional only- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- 40.2
- Qwen3.8-27B
- 38.7
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Multimodal
Directional only- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- 83.8
- Qwen3.8-27B
- 90.2
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- 74.7
- Qwen3.8-27B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- 32.9
- Qwen3.8-27B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- Not measured
- Qwen3.8-27B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- Not measured
- Qwen3.8-27B
- 79.5
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Qwen3.8-27B | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 55.1 | 61.7 | Like-for-like1 vs 1 rows | Qwen3.8-27B leads |
| Agentic | 77.2 | 84.3 | Directional only2 vs 1 rows | Directional only |
| Knowledge | 40.2 | 38.7 | Directional only1 vs 2 rows | Directional only |
| Multimodal | 83.8 | 90.2 | Directional only2 vs 1 rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | 74.7 | Not measured | Not comparable2 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 32.9 | Not measured | Not comparable2 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not measured | 79.5 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
Shape of the matched evidence
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
HLE
Knowledge
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 40.2%Qwen3.8-27B: 30.8%Normalized gap 9.4Gemini 3.5 Flash source Qwen3.8-27B sourceSWE-bench Pro
Coding
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 55.1%Qwen3.8-27B: 61.7%Normalized gap 6.6Gemini 3.5 Flash source Qwen3.8-27B sourceCharXiv
Multimodal
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 84.2%Qwen3.8-27B: 90.2%Normalized gap 6.0Gemini 3.5 Flash source Qwen3.8-27B sourceOSWorld-Verified
Agentic
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 78.4%Qwen3.8-27B: 84.3%Normalized gap 5.9Gemini 3.5 Flash source Qwen3.8-27B source
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- $0.006
- Fits in one request
- Qwen3.8-27B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
Qwen3.8-27B has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- $0.102
- Fits in one request
- Qwen3.8-27B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
Qwen3.8-27B has no comparable published API token rate.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- $0.15
- Fits in one request
- Qwen3.8-27B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
Qwen3.8-27B has no comparable published API token rate.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationGemini 3.5 FlashQwen3.8-27B
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Qwen3.8-27B
API model ID
Gemini 3.5 Flash
gemini-3.5-flash
Google Gemini API pricingQwen3.8-27B
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Gemini 3.5 Flash
$0.15 per 1M cached input tokens
Google Gemini API pricingQwen3.8-27B
No comparable hosted API rate
Qwen3.8-27B model cardDocumented inputs
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Not sourced
Qwen3.8-27B
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Not sourced
Qwen3.8-27B
Not sourced
Provider availability
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Not sourced
Qwen3.8-27B
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Reasoning
Qwen3.8-27B
Reasoning
Weight access
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Proprietary
Qwen3.8-27B
Open Weight
License
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Proprietary
Qwen3.8-27B
Open Weight
Release date
Gemini 3.5 Flash
2026-05-19
Qwen3.8-27B
2026-08-05
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
- Quality signal
- At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- Gemini 3.5 Flash has the larger documented window (1M).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence45 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Gemini 3.5 Flash76.2%SourceQwen3.8-27B—Not directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Gemini 3.5 Flash83.6%SourceQwen3.8-27B—Not directly comparable
Toolathlon
Gemini 3.5 Flash56.5%SourceQwen3.8-27B—Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Gemini 3.5 Flash78.4%SourceQwen3.8-27B84.3%SourceQwen3.8-27B leads this result
Finance Agent v2
Gemini 3.5 Flash57.9%SourceQwen3.8-27B—Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
Gemini 3.5 Flash61.85%SourceQwen3.8-27B—Not directly comparable
ResearchClawBench
Gemini 3.5 Flash18.0%SourceQwen3.8-27B—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Gemini 3.5 Flash—Qwen3.8-27B73.0%SourceNot directly comparable
CoWorkBench
Gemini 3.5 Flash—Qwen3.8-27B70.7%SourceNot directly comparable
JobBench
Gemini 3.5 Flash—Qwen3.8-27B33.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Agents' Last Exam
Gemini 3.5 Flash—Qwen3.8-27B42.9%SourceNot directly comparable
WebArena-Verified
Gemini 3.5 Flash—Qwen3.8-27B64.8%SourceNot directly comparable
AndroidWorld
Gemini 3.5 Flash—Qwen3.8-27B81.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Gemini 3.5 Flash76.2%SourceQwen3.8-27B—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Gemini 3.5 Flash55.1%SourceQwen3.8-27B61.7%SourceQwen3.8-27B leads this result
Vibe Code Bench
Gemini 3.5 Flash48.68%SourceQwen3.8-27B—Not directly comparable
cursorBench31
Gemini 3.5 Flash49.8%SourceQwen3.8-27B—Not directly comparable
cursorBench32
Gemini 3.5 Flash48.8%SourceQwen3.8-27B—Not directly comparable
EEBench
Gemini 3.5 Flash34.3%SourceQwen3.8-27B—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Gemini 3.5 Flash—Qwen3.8-27B73.0%SourceNot directly comparable
NL2Repo
Gemini 3.5 Flash—Qwen3.8-27B42.3%SourceNot directly comparable
deepSwe
Gemini 3.5 Flash—Qwen3.8-27B42.2%SourceNot directly comparable
LiveCodeBench v6
Gemini 3.5 Flash—Qwen3.8-27B90.3%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
Knowledge
GPQA-D
Gemini 3.5 Flash92.7%SourceQwen3.8-27B89.2%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
HLE
Gemini 3.5 Flash40.2%SourceQwen3.8-27B30.8%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
GPQA
Gemini 3.5 Flash—Qwen3.8-27B89.2%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
Gemini 3.5 Flash—Qwen3.8-27B30.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
Multimodal
CharXiv
Gemini 3.5 Flash84.2%SourceQwen3.8-27B90.2%SourceQwen3.8-27B leads this result
MMMU-Pro
Gemini 3.5 Flash83.6%SourceQwen3.8-27B—Not directly comparable
Blueprint-Bench 2
Gemini 3.5 Flash33.6%SourceQwen3.8-27B—Not directly comparable
MathVision
Gemini 3.5 Flash—Qwen3.8-27B90.0%SourceNot directly comparable
MathVision w/ Python
Gemini 3.5 Flash—Qwen3.8-27B94.6%SourceNot directly comparable
BabyVision
Gemini 3.5 Flash—Qwen3.8-27B65.7%SourceNot directly comparable
BabyVision w/ Python
Gemini 3.5 Flash—Qwen3.8-27B85.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Vision2Web
Gemini 3.5 Flash—Qwen3.8-27B62.9%SourceNot directly comparable
CharXiv w/o tools
Gemini 3.5 Flash—Qwen3.8-27B83.7%SourceNot directly comparable
OmniDocBench 1.5
Gemini 3.5 Flash—Qwen3.8-27B91.1%SourceNot directly comparable
RealWorldQA
Gemini 3.5 Flash—Qwen3.8-27B85.9%SourceNot directly comparable
ERQA
Gemini 3.5 Flash—Qwen3.8-27B65.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Instruction following
IFBench
Gemini 3.5 Flash—Qwen3.8-27B79.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Gemini 3.5 Flash or Qwen3.8-27B?
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.
Which is better for coding, Gemini 3.5 Flash or Qwen3.8-27B?
Qwen3.8-27B leads the like-for-like coding comparison across 1 shared weighted benchmark row.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Gemini 3.5 Flash or Qwen3.8-27B?
The current agentic tasks averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so BenchLM does not name a winner from them. Read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which costs less, Gemini 3.5 Flash or Qwen3.8-27B?
Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.
Which has the larger context window, Gemini 3.5 Flash or Qwen3.8-27B?
Gemini 3.5 Flash has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 262K.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 14, 2026
Watch Gemini 3.5 Flash vs Qwen3.8-27B
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.