Gemini 3.7 FlashvsQwen3.8-Flash-Next
Gemini 3.7 Flash | Qwen3.8-Flash-Next | |
|---|---|---|
| Specifications | ||
ParametersA rough measure of how big the model is. More parameters usually means more capable and more expensive to run, though it is a poor guide on its own — a smaller, newer model often beats a larger, older one. | — | 125B |
Context windowHow much text the model can hold in mind at once — your question, any documents you attach, the conversation so far, and its own reply. Go past it and the earliest part falls out of view. | 1M | 262k |
| API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins | ||
Input priceWhat you pay for everything you send the model — your question, plus any documents or earlier conversation you include with it. | $0.75 | — |
Output priceWhat you pay for the text the model writes back. It is normally the dearer half: producing an answer costs more than reading one. | $3.75 | — |
Cached input priceA reduced rate for text you send over and over. If every request starts with the same instructions or the same document, the provider keeps a copy ready and charges less to read it again. | $0.075 | — |
| Benchmarks | ||
DeepSWE 1.1Agentic coding — Artificial 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% | 58.7% |
OSWorld 2.0Agentic computer use — Can 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% | 19.4% |
Agent's Last Exam · pass@1Agentic computer use — A 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% | 24.3% |
CharXiv ReasoningChart reasoning — Can the AI read and reason about complex charts and figures, not just text? Higher is better. | 84.5% | 84.6% |
LVBenchVideo understanding — Can 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% | 76.6% |
| BenchmarksPublished by one model only | ||
BullshitBench v2Nonsense detection — Given a confidently-worded but nonsensical prompt, does the AI spot that it makes no sense and push back — instead of playing along and inventing an answer? The score is how often it clearly called out the nonsense. Higher is better. | 35% | — |
SWE-Bench ProAgentic coding — Can 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. | — | 62.5% |
SWE-Bench MultilingualMultilingual coding — Like SWE-Bench, but the coding problems span many programming languages, not just one. Tests how broadly the AI can code. Higher is better. | — | 81% |
FrontierCode v1.1 (Main) · main splitAgentic coding — A 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% | — |
NL2Repo-BenchRepo-level code generation — Tests 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. | — | 48.1% |
LiveCodeBenchCompetitive coding — Coding problems published so recently the AI can't have seen them in training — a contamination-free test of raw programming skill. Higher is better. | — | 91.9% |
Terminal-Bench 3.0Agentic terminal coding — command-line task completion (v3.0, much harder task set) | 14.9% | — |
Terminal-Bench 2.1Agentic terminal coding — Can 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% | — |
JobBenchProfessional tool use — Tests 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. | — | 55.7% |
CoWorkBenchLong-horizon office work — Tests long-running office tasks across fields including computer science, finance, law, medicine, and other productivity work. Higher is better. | — | 73.9% |
Toolathlon-VerifiedPersonal tool use — Tests how well the AI uses everyday personal tools and apps to get things done — a human-checked version of Toolathlon. Higher is better. | — | 73.5% |
Humanity's Last Exam · no toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity'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. | — | 35.9% |
Humanity's Last Exam (Verified)Multidisciplinary reasoning — 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% | — |
BioMysteryBench · hardBiology — Real 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% | — |
BioMysteryBench · human solvedBiology — Real biology puzzles that human experts have managed to crack — can the AI reach the same answers? Higher is better. | 87.1% | — |
LAB-Bench 2Biology — Everyday 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% | — |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | — | 91.7% |
IFBenchInstruction following — Tests whether the AI can follow detailed instructions and satisfy multiple constraints at once. Higher is better. | — | 81.3% |
Agent's Last Exam · scoreAgentic computer use — The 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. | — | 51.2% |
AutomationBenchBusiness workflows — Tests 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% | — |
Harvey's Legal Agent BenchmarkAgentic legal work — Harvey'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% | — |
AA Intelligence IndexOverall intelligence — Artificial Analysis composite intelligence index across evals | 56 | — |
GDPval-AA v2Knowledge work — economically valuable knowledge work (v2, re-based Elo) | 1525 | — |
GDP.PDFDocument comprehension — Real 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% | — |
MRCR v2 (8-needle) · 128k averageLong context — Tests whether the AI can find specific details buried inside a very long document (around 128k tokens — roughly a long book). Higher is better. | 97% | — |
MRCR v2 (8-needle) · 1M pointwiseLong context — Tests whether the AI can find specific details buried inside an enormous document (around 1 million tokens — many books). Higher is better. | 62.5% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Qwen | |
| Release date | Aug 13 2026 | Aug 26 2026 |
| Access | Proprietary | Open Weight |
Other comparisons
Gemini 3.7 FlashvsClaude Opus 5Qwen3.8-Flash-NextvsClaude Opus 5Gemini 3.7 FlashvsGPT-5.6 SolQwen3.8-Flash-NextvsGPT-5.6 SolGemini 3.7 FlashvsMuse GlimmerQwen3.8-Flash-NextvsMuse GlimmerGemini 3.7 FlashvsGrok 4.6Qwen3.8-Flash-NextvsGrok 4.6Gemini 3.7 FlashvsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813Qwen3.8-Flash-NextvsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813Gemini 3.7 FlashvsMistral Medium 3.5Qwen3.8-Flash-NextvsMistral Medium 3.5
Frequently asked questions
Gemini 3.7 Flash leads Qwen3.8-Flash-Next on 4 of the 5 benchmarks they both report. Only Gemini 3.7 Flash has a verified first-party API price: $0.75 per million input tokens and $3.75 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Qwen3.8-Flash-Next. Gemini 3.7 Flash shipped 13 days before Qwen3.8-Flash-Next, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 1M (Gemini 3.7 Flash) vs 262k (Qwen3.8-Flash-Next). Gemini 3.7 Flash is proprietary, while Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is open weight.
On DeepSWE 1.1, Gemini 3.7 Flash leads at 65.3% vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next at 58.7%. On OSWorld 2.0, Gemini 3.7 Flash leads at 38.1% vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next at 19.4%. On Agent's Last Exam · pass@1, Gemini 3.7 Flash leads at 26.3% vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next at 24.3%. On CharXiv Reasoning, Qwen3.8-Flash-Next leads at 84.6% vs Gemini 3.7 Flash at 84.5%. On LVBench, Gemini 3.7 Flash leads at 85.4% vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next at 76.6%.
Gemini 3.7 Flash was released by Google on Aug 13 2026.
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next was released by Qwen on Aug 26 2026.
Gemini 3.7 Flash leads on DeepSWE 1.1 — Gemini 3.7 Flash 65.3% vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next 58.7%.
Only Gemini 3.7 Flash has a verified first-party API price: $0.75 per million input tokens and $3.75 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Qwen3.8-Flash-Next. Rates are pay-as-you-go API prices verified on August 18, 2026.
Gemini 3.7 Flash has a 1M context window; Qwen3.8-Flash-Next has 262k.
Gemini 3.7 Flash is a proprietary model released by Google. Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is an open weight model released by Qwen.