Gemini 3.7 FlashvsQwen3.8-27B
Gemini 3.7 Flash | Qwen3.8-27B | |
|---|---|---|
| Specifications | ||
Parameters | — | 27B |
Context window | 1M | 262k |
| Benchmarks | ||
Agentic coding SWE-Bench ProCan the AI fix real bugs in real software? It's handed actual problems from open-source projects and has to write code that genuinely solves them. Higher is better. | — | 61.7% |
Agentic coding DeepSWE 1.1Artificial Analysis' independent test of deep, agentic software-engineering work — the AI has to plan and carry out substantial coding tasks end to end. (Version 1.1 of the test.) Higher is better. | 65.3%Best | 42.2% |
Agentic coding FrontierCode v1.1 (Main) · main splitA set of very hard, frontier-difficulty coding tasks an AI agent has to complete end to end. The score is the share of tasks in the main split it solves. Higher is better. | 43.6% | — |
Repo-level code generation NL2Repo-BenchTests whether the AI can turn a natural-language requirement into working code across an entire repository, not just produce a single function or patch. Higher is better. | — | 42.3% |
Software engineering QwenSWEBenchQwen's in-house coding benchmark for evaluating a model's ability to complete software-engineering work. Higher is better. | — | 79% |
Competitive coding LiveCodeBenchCoding problems published so recently the AI can't have seen them in training — a contamination-free test of raw programming skill. Higher is better. | — | 90.3% |
Agentic terminal coding Terminal-Bench 3.0command-line task completion (v3.0, much harder task set) | 14.9% | — |
Agentic terminal coding Terminal-Bench 2.1Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Higher is better. | 85.8%Best | 73% |
Professional tool use JobBenchTests the AI on professional workplace tasks that require using real work tools — the kind of multi-step jobs an office worker handles. Higher is better. | — | 33.4% |
Long-horizon office work CoWorkBenchTests long-running office tasks across fields including computer science, finance, law, medicine, and other productivity work. Higher is better. | — | 70.7% |
Multidisciplinary reasoning Humanity's Last Exam · no toolsHumanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects, written so you can't just look up the answer. “No tools” means the AI answers on its own. Higher is better. | — | 30.8% |
Multidisciplinary reasoning Humanity's Last Exam (Verified)The re-checked edition of Humanity's Last Exam: the same extremely hard expert questions, minus the ones found to be flawed or wrongly answered. Scores on it run lower than on the original exam, so read the two as separate tests rather than a before-and-after. Higher is better. | 53.6% | — |
Biology BioMysteryBench · hardReal unsolved-style biology puzzles — the AI has to reason its way to an answer the way a research biologist would. The “hard” split contains the toughest cases. Higher is better. | 43.5% | — |
Biology BioMysteryBench · human solvedReal biology puzzles that human experts have managed to crack — can the AI reach the same answers? Higher is better. | 87.1% | — |
Biology LAB-Bench 2Everyday tasks from a working biology lab — reading protocols, interpreting figures and sequence data, and answering the practical questions a researcher hits at the bench. Higher is better. | 82.1% | — |
Science GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | — | 89.2% |
Instruction following IFBenchTests whether the AI can follow detailed instructions and satisfy multiple constraints at once. Higher is better. | — | 79.5% |
Agentic computer use OSWorld 2.0Can the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Version 2.0 is a harder, refreshed task set. Higher is better. | 38.1% | — |
Agentic computer use Agent's Last Exam · pass@1A hard set of desktop and operating-system tasks an AI agent has to finish by looking at the screen and working the machine itself. The score is the share it passes outright — partial credit does not count. Higher is better. | 26.3%Best | 20.4% |
Agentic computer use Agent's Last Exam · scoreThe graded score on the same desktop and operating-system tasks in Agent's Last Exam, giving partial credit for progress beyond the strict pass-or-fail result. Higher is better. | — | 42.9% |
Business workflows AutomationBenchTests whether the AI can run real multi-step business workflows — the kind of end-to-end office processes companies want to automate — from start to finish. Higher is better. | 30.4% | — |
Agentic legal work Harvey's Legal Agent BenchmarkHarvey's test of whether an AI agent can complete real legal work — drafting and reviewing documents, working with spreadsheets and presentations, and navigating files the way a lawyer's assistant would. Higher is better. | 90.7% | — |
Overall intelligence AA Intelligence IndexArtificial Analysis composite intelligence index across evals | 56 | — |
Knowledge work GDPval-AA v2economically valuable knowledge work (v2, re-based Elo) | 1525 | — |
Chart reasoning CharXiv ReasoningCan the AI read and reason about complex charts and figures, not just text? Higher is better. | 84.5% | — |
Document comprehension GDP.PDFReal professional PDFs — filings, reports, technical documents — with questions an expert in that field would ask. Tests whether the AI reads the page as a document, layout and figures included, rather than as loose text. Higher is better. | 34% | — |
Video understanding LVBenchCan the AI follow a very long video — up to an hour — and answer questions that need details from far apart in it? Higher is better. | 85.4% | — |
Long context MRCR v2 (8-needle) · 128k averageTests whether the AI can find specific details buried inside a very long document (around 128k tokens — roughly a long book). Higher is better. | 97% | — |
Long context MRCR v2 (8-needle) · 1M pointwiseTests whether the AI can find specific details buried inside an enormous document (around 1 million tokens — many books). Higher is better. | 62.5% | — |
Community preference (code) Arena Elo (Code)Like the text arena, but people vote on which AI writes better code. The votes become a chess-style Elo rating on arena.ai. Higher is better. | 1588 | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Qwen | |
| Release date | Aug 13 2026 | Aug 14 2026 |
| Access | Proprietary | Open Weight |
Which is better: Gemini 3.7 Flash or Qwen3.8-27B?
Gemini 3.7 Flash leads Qwen3.8-27B on 3 of the 3 benchmarks they both report (DeepSWE 1.1, Terminal-Bench 2.1, Agent's Last Exam). Gemini 3.7 Flash shipped 1 days before Qwen3.8-27B, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 1M (Gemini 3.7 Flash) vs 262k (Qwen3.8-27B). Gemini 3.7 Flash is proprietary, while Qwen3.8-27B is open weight.
On DeepSWE 1.1, Gemini 3.7 Flash leads at 65.3% vs Qwen3.8-27B at 42.2%. On Terminal-Bench 2.1, Gemini 3.7 Flash leads at 85.8% vs Qwen3.8-27B at 73%. On Agent's Last Exam · pass@1, Gemini 3.7 Flash leads at 26.3% vs Qwen3.8-27B at 20.4%.
Frequently asked questions
Gemini 3.7 Flash was released by Google on Aug 13 2026.
Qwen3.8-27B was released by Qwen on Aug 14 2026.
Gemini 3.7 Flash leads on DeepSWE 1.1 — Gemini 3.7 Flash 65.3% vs Qwen3.8-27B 42.2%.
Gemini 3.7 Flash has a 1M context window; Qwen3.8-27B has 262k.
Gemini 3.7 Flash is a proprietary model released by Google. Qwen3.8-27B is an open weight model released by Qwen.
Other comparisons
Gemini 3.7 FlashvsClaude Opus 5Qwen3.8-27BvsClaude Opus 5Gemini 3.7 FlashvsGPT-5.6-CyberQwen3.8-27BvsGPT-5.6-CyberGemini 3.7 FlashvsMuse GlimmerQwen3.8-27BvsMuse GlimmerGemini 3.7 FlashvsGrok 4.6Qwen3.8-27BvsGrok 4.6Gemini 3.7 FlashvsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813Qwen3.8-27BvsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813Gemini 3.7 FlashvsMistral Medium 3.5Qwen3.8-27BvsMistral Medium 3.5