Gemini 3.8 FlashvsQwen3.6
Gemini 3.8 Flash | Qwen3.6 | |
|---|---|---|
| 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. | — | 35B |
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 | 256k |
| 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. | — | $0.375 |
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. | — | $2.25 |
Cheapest inputLowest input rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. The cheapest endpoint may run a quantised build or a shorter context — see "Available from" on the model page. | — | $0.05Darkbloom |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | — | $0.70Darkbloom |
| Benchmarks | ||
CharXiv ReasoningChart reasoning — Can the AI read and reason about complex charts and figures, not just text? Higher is better. | 86.2% | 78% |
| BenchmarksPublished by one model only | ||
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. | — | 49.5% |
SWE-Bench VerifiedCoding — Real coding tasks pulled from open-source projects — the AI has to find and fix actual bugs. A human-checked version of the original SWE-Bench. Higher is better. | — | 73.4% |
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. | — | 67.2% |
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. | 71% | — |
Terminal-Bench 4.0Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Version 4.0 recalibrated how much time, CPU and memory each task gets, removed eight tasks and fixed nineteen, so fewer runs fail for reasons that have nothing to do with the model. Scores are not comparable with earlier versions. Higher is better. | 19.1% | — |
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. | 89.4% | — |
Terminal-Bench 2.0Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? (Version 2.0 of the test.) Higher is better. | — | 51.5% |
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. | — | 21.4% |
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. | 54.9% | — |
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. | 56.5% | — |
BioMysteryBench · human solvedBiology — Real biology puzzles that human experts have managed to crack — can the AI reach the same answers? Higher is better. | 88.8% | — |
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. | 86.2% | — |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | — | 86% |
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. | 59% | — |
Finance Agent v2Agentic financial analysis — Tests the AI on real financial-analysis work, like digging through reports and making sound decisions. Higher is better. | 61.4% | — |
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. | 10% | — |
GDPval-AA v2Knowledge work — economically valuable knowledge work (v2, re-based Elo) | 1545 | — |
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. | 35% | — |
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. | 87.1% | — |
LVBench · agenticVideo understanding — The same long-video test, run with the AI free to navigate the video itself — skipping around, replaying sections — rather than being shown it once. Read it as a separate test from the unaided run above. Higher is better. | 87.8% | — |
MMMU-ProMultimodal reasoning — A tougher version of MMMU — college-level questions that mix images, diagrams, and text together. Higher is better. | — | 75.3% |
MMMUMultimodal — Tests the AI on understanding images and text together across many college subjects. Higher is better. | — | 81.7% |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Qwen | |
| Release date | Sep 2 2026 | Apr 16 2026 |
| Access | Proprietary | Open Weight |
Other comparisons
Gemini 3.8 FlashvsClaude Fable 5.1Qwen3.6vsClaude Fable 5.1Gemini 3.8 FlashvsGPT-5.6 SolQwen3.6vsGPT-5.6 SolGemini 3.8 FlashvsMuse GlimmerQwen3.6vsMuse GlimmerGemini 3.8 FlashvsGrok 4.6Qwen3.6vsGrok 4.6Gemini 3.8 FlashvsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813Qwen3.6vsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813Gemini 3.8 FlashvsMistral Medium 3.5Qwen3.6vsMistral Medium 3.5
Frequently asked questions
Gemini 3.8 Flash leads Qwen3.6 on 1 of the 1 benchmark they both report (CharXiv Reasoning). Only Qwen3.6 has a verified first-party API price: $0.375 per million input tokens and $2.25 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Gemini 3.8 Flash. Qwen3.6 shipped 139 days before Gemini 3.8 Flash, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 1M (Gemini 3.8 Flash) vs 256k (Qwen3.6). Gemini 3.8 Flash is proprietary, while Qwen3.6 is open weight.
On CharXiv Reasoning, Gemini 3.8 Flash leads at 86.2% vs Qwen3.6 at 78%.
Gemini 3.8 Flash was released by Google on Sep 2 2026.
Qwen3.6 was released by Qwen on Apr 16 2026.
Only Qwen3.6 has a verified first-party API price: $0.375 per million input tokens and $2.25 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Gemini 3.8 Flash. Rates are pay-as-you-go API prices verified on August 18, 2026.
Gemini 3.8 Flash has a 1M context window; Qwen3.6 has 256k.
Gemini 3.8 Flash is a proprietary model released by Google. Qwen3.6 is an open weight model released by Qwen.