Agentic
Not comparable- Gemini 3.8 Flash
- Not measured
- Qwen3.7 Plus
- 71.7
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Gemini 3.8 Flash vs Qwen3.7 Plus
Updated September 2, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
Gemini 3.8 Flash has the higher public score estimate, 75.37 versus 65.68, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.
1 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.
No workload recommendation clears the current evidence threshold.
Use the matched evidence, workload costs, and sourced specifications below instead of treating a point score as a universal answer.
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
No clear pick
The documented context windows are equal.
Confidence: documented
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.
11 Gemini 3.8 Flash only
1 Shared
50 Qwen3.7 Plus only
- Shared results
- 1
- Gemini 3.8 Flash only
- 11
- Qwen3.7 Plus only
- 50
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
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.
Coding
Not comparable- Gemini 3.8 Flash
- Not measured
- Qwen3.7 Plus
- 75.6
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 4 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Gemini 3.8 Flash
- Not measured
- Qwen3.7 Plus
- 91.7
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Gemini 3.8 Flash
- Not measured
- Qwen3.7 Plus
- 60.1
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 4 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Gemini 3.8 Flash
- Not measured
- Qwen3.7 Plus
- 92.9
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Gemini 3.8 Flash
- Not measured
- Qwen3.7 Plus
- 85.4
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Gemini 3.8 Flash
- Not measured
- Qwen3.7 Plus
- 81.5
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Gemini 3.8 Flash
- Not measured
- Qwen3.7 Plus
- 84.5
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Gemini 3.8 Flash | Qwen3.7 Plus | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Not measured | 71.7 | Not comparable0 vs 2 rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | Not measured | 75.6 | Not comparable0 vs 4 rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not measured | 91.7 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | Not measured | 60.1 | Not comparable0 vs 4 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not measured | 92.9 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | 85.4 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not measured | 81.5 | Not comparable0 vs 2 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not measured | 84.5 | Not comparable0 vs 2 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.
A shared-evidence shape is not available.
BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.
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 3.8 Flash
- $0.00262
- Fits in one request
- Qwen3.7 Plus
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
Qwen3.7 Plus has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Gemini 3.8 Flash
- $0.04875
- Fits in one request
- Qwen3.7 Plus
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
Qwen3.7 Plus has no comparable published API token rate.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Gemini 3.8 Flash
- $0.0675
- Fits in one request
- Qwen3.7 Plus
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
Qwen3.7 Plus 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 3.8 FlashQwen3.7 Plus
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Gemini 3.8 Flash
Qwen3.7 Plus
1M
API model ID
Gemini 3.8 Flash
gemini-3.8-flash
Google Gemini 3.8 Flash API documentationQwen3.7 Plus
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Gemini 3.8 Flash
$0.075 per 1M cached input tokens
Google Gemini API pricingQwen3.7 Plus
No comparable hosted API rate
Documented inputs
Gemini 3.8 Flash
text, image, video, audio, pdf
Google Gemini 3.8 Flash API documentationQwen3.7 Plus
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Gemini 3.8 Flash
Qwen3.7 Plus
Not sourced
Provider availability
Gemini 3.8 Flash
Generally Available · Gemini API, Google AI Studio, Android Studio, Stitch, Gemini app, Gemini Enterprise, Google AI Mode, Google Sheets, Google Antigravity
Google Gemini 3.8 Flash and Gemini 3.8 Flash Cyber launchQwen3.7 Plus
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Gemini 3.8 Flash
Reasoning
Qwen3.7 Plus
Reasoning
Weight access
Gemini 3.8 Flash
Proprietary
Qwen3.7 Plus
Proprietary
License
Gemini 3.8 Flash
Proprietary
Qwen3.7 Plus
Proprietary
Release date
Gemini 3.8 Flash
2026-09-02
Qwen3.7 Plus
2026-06-03
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
- Gemini 3.8 Flash has the higher public score estimate, 75.37 versus 65.68, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- Both models list 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 evidence62 rows
Agentic
Finance Agent v2
Gemini 3.8 Flash61.4%SourceQwen3.7 Plus—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Gemini 3.8 Flash89.4%SourceQwen3.7 Plus—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 4.0
Gemini 3.8 Flash19.10%SourceQwen3.7 Plus—Not directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
Gemini 3.8 Flash59.0%SourceQwen3.7 Plus2.8%SourceGemini 3.8 Flash leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Gemini 3.8 Flash—Qwen3.7 Plus70.3%SourceNot directly comparable
QwenClawBench
Gemini 3.8 Flash—Qwen3.7 Plus61.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Gemini 3.8 Flash—Qwen3.7 Plus62.7%SourceNot directly comparable
BFCL v4
Gemini 3.8 Flash—Qwen3.7 Plus72.9%SourceNot directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Gemini 3.8 Flash—Qwen3.7 Plus73.2%SourceNot directly comparable
VITA-Bench
Gemini 3.8 Flash—Qwen3.7 Plus45.6%SourceNot directly comparable
DeepPlanning
Gemini 3.8 Flash—Qwen3.7 Plus62.3%SourceNot directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Gemini 3.8 Flash—Qwen3.7 Plus73.3%SourceNot directly comparable
AndroidWorld
Gemini 3.8 Flash—Qwen3.7 Plus81.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
deepSwe
Gemini 3.8 Flash73.8%SourceQwen3.7 Plus—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Gemini 3.8 Flash89.4%SourceQwen3.7 Plus—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Gemini 3.8 Flash—Qwen3.7 Plus70.3%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE-bench Verified
Gemini 3.8 Flash—Qwen3.7 Plus77.7%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Gemini 3.8 Flash—Qwen3.7 Plus57.6%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE Multilingual
Gemini 3.8 Flash—Qwen3.7 Plus75.8%SourceNot directly comparable
NL2Repo
Gemini 3.8 Flash—Qwen3.7 Plus41.1%SourceNot directly comparable
SciCode
Gemini 3.8 Flash—Qwen3.7 Plus51.3%SourceNot directly comparable
LiveCodeBench
Gemini 3.8 Flash—Qwen3.7 Plus89.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
Knowledge
HLE-Verified
Gemini 3.8 Flash54.9%SourceQwen3.7 Plus—Not directly comparable
LABBench2
Gemini 3.8 Flash86.2%SourceQwen3.7 Plus—Not directly comparable
BioMysteryBench (human-solvable)
Gemini 3.8 Flash88.8%SourceQwen3.7 Plus—Not directly comparable
BioMysteryBench (human-difficult)
Gemini 3.8 Flash56.5%SourceQwen3.7 Plus—Not directly comparable
GPQA
Gemini 3.8 Flash—Qwen3.7 Plus90.3%SourceNot directly comparable
GPQA-D
Gemini 3.8 Flash—Qwen3.7 Plus90.3%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE
Gemini 3.8 Flash—Qwen3.7 Plus34.7%SourceNot directly comparable
MMLU-Pro
Gemini 3.8 Flash—Qwen3.7 Plus88.5%SourceNot directly comparable
MMLU-Redux
Gemini 3.8 Flash—Qwen3.7 Plus94.5%SourceNot directly comparable
SuperGPQA
Gemini 3.8 Flash—Qwen3.7 Plus71.4%SourceNot directly comparable
MMMLU
Gemini 3.8 Flash—Qwen3.7 Plus89.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
Multilingual
MMLU-ProX
Gemini 3.8 Flash—Qwen3.7 Plus85.4%SourceNot directly comparable
NOVA-63
Gemini 3.8 Flash—Qwen3.7 Plus58.8%SourceNot directly comparable
INCLUDE
Gemini 3.8 Flash—Qwen3.7 Plus83.0%SourceNot directly comparable
MAXIFE
Gemini 3.8 Flash—Qwen3.7 Plus88.8%SourceNot directly comparable
PolyMath
Gemini 3.8 Flash—Qwen3.7 Plus84.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Multimodal
CharXiv w/o tools
Gemini 3.8 Flash86.2%SourceQwen3.7 Plus—Not directly comparable
LVBench
Gemini 3.8 Flash87.1%SourceQwen3.7 Plus—Not directly comparable
MMMU-Pro
Gemini 3.8 Flash—Qwen3.7 Plus79%SourceNot directly comparable
MathVision
Gemini 3.8 Flash—Qwen3.7 Plus90.3%SourceNot directly comparable
CharXiv
Gemini 3.8 Flash—Qwen3.7 Plus85.9%SourceNot directly comparable
ERQA
Gemini 3.8 Flash—Qwen3.7 Plus69.8%SourceNot directly comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)
Gemini 3.8 Flash—Qwen3.7 Plus71.0%SourceNot directly comparable
ScreenSpot Pro
Gemini 3.8 Flash—Qwen3.7 Plus79.0%SourceNot directly comparable
SimpleVQA
Gemini 3.8 Flash—Qwen3.7 Plus81.7%SourceNot directly comparable
MMSearch-Plus
Gemini 3.8 Flash—Qwen3.7 Plus41.4%SourceNot directly comparable
RealWorldQA
Gemini 3.8 Flash—Qwen3.7 Plus86.9%SourceNot directly comparable
OmniDocBench 1.5
Gemini 3.8 Flash—Qwen3.7 Plus91.4%SourceNot directly comparable
OCRBench V2
Gemini 3.8 Flash—Qwen3.7 Plus70.7%SourceNot directly comparable
ODINW13
Gemini 3.8 Flash—Qwen3.7 Plus51.1%SourceNot directly comparable
Video-MME (with subtitle)
Gemini 3.8 Flash—Qwen3.7 Plus88.0%SourceNot directly comparable
VideoMMMU
Gemini 3.8 Flash—Qwen3.7 Plus85.4%SourceNot directly comparable
MLVU (M-Avg)
Gemini 3.8 Flash—Qwen3.7 Plus87.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Instruction following
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Gemini 3.8 Flash or Qwen3.7 Plus?
Gemini 3.8 Flash has the higher public score estimate, 75.37 versus 65.68, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.
Which is better for coding, Gemini 3.8 Flash or Qwen3.7 Plus?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted coding basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a coding winner.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Gemini 3.8 Flash or Qwen3.7 Plus?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.
Which costs less, Gemini 3.8 Flash or Qwen3.7 Plus?
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 3.8 Flash or Qwen3.7 Plus?
Both models list the same context window, 1M.
Related comparisons
Last updated September 2, 2026
Watch Gemini 3.8 Flash vs Qwen3.7 Plus
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.