Gemini 3.6 Flash vs Qwen3.8 27B
Gemini 3.6 Flash comes out ahead, 72 to 66 on our weighted score, though Qwen3.8 27B is 38% cheaper per token.
- Our pick
GoogleGemini 3.6 Flash
72/100- ECI154.7
- Price$0.75 / $3.75
- Context1.05M
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3.8 27B
66/100- ECI151.8
- Price$0.40 / $2.55
- Context262K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Gemini 3.6 Flash is our pick
Gemini 3.6 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 72/100 against Qwen3.8 27B (66). It leads on capability, inputs & features and context window. Qwen3.8 27B wins on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
- CapabilityGemini 3.6 FlashCapabilities Index (ECI): Gemini 3.6 Flash 154.7 · Qwen3.8 27B 151.8
- Lowest priceQwen3.8 27BQwen3.8 27B $0.938 · Gemini 3.6 Flash $1.50 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextGemini 3.6 FlashGemini 3.6 Flash 1,048,576 · Qwen3.8 27B 262,144 tokens
- Widest inputsGemini 3.6 FlashGemini 3.6 Flash: Text, Images, PDFs, Audio, Video · Qwen3.8 27B: Text, Images, Video
- Self-hostingQwen3.8 27BPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | Gemini 3.6 Flash | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|---|
| CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI) | 50% | 82 | 79 |
| Price | 25% | 40 | 49 |
| Inputs & features | 15% | 100 | 70 |
| Context window | 10% | 61 | 37 |
| Overall | 100% | 72/100 | 66/100 |
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Gemini 3.6 FlashGoogle | Qwen3.8 27BAlibaba (Qwen) |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 154.7 (best) | 151.8 |
| ECI rank | #42 of 165 (best) | #54 of 165 |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | 94.1% | — |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics | 59.0% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | 94.2% | — |
| SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions | 66.2% | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.75 | $0.40 (best) |
| Output | $3.75 | $2.55 (best) |
| Cached input | $0.075 | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $1.50 | $0.938 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Google API | Median of 49 providers |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 1,048,576 tokens (best) | 262,144 tokens |
| Max output | 65,536 tokens (best) | 32,768 tokens |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | Yes |
| PDFs | Yes | No |
| Audio | Yes | No |
| Video | Yes | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yesminimal · low · medium · high | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| API model ID | gemini-3.6-flash | — |
| API providers | 31 | 53 (best) |
| Released | Jul 21, 2026 | Aug 14, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Mar 2026 | — |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Gemini 3.6 Flash$15.00
- Qwen3.8 27B$9.10
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Gemini 3.6 Flash or Qwen3.8 27B?
Gemini 3.6 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 72/100 against Qwen3.8 27B (66). It leads on capability, inputs & features and context window. Qwen3.8 27B wins on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
Which is cheaper, Gemini 3.6 Flash or Qwen3.8 27B?
Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper at $0.40 input / $2.55 output per million tokens (median across 49 API providers). Gemini 3.6 Flash costs $0.75 input / $3.75 output per million tokens (official Google API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.938 per million tokens for Qwen3.8 27B versus $1.50 for Gemini 3.6 Flash (1.6× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
Gemini 3.6 Flash scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): Gemini 3.6 Flash 154.7 (#42 of 165) and Qwen3.8 27B 151.8 (#54 of 165). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (153.0–156.7 vs 149.9–153.6), so treat the gap as small.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Gemini 3.6 Flash and Qwen3.8 27B yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, Gemini 3.6 Flash leads, which tends to carry over to coding, but test on your own codebase. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Gemini 3.6 Flash has the largest context window at 1,048,576 tokens, against 262,144 for Qwen3.8 27B. Maximum output per response: Gemini 3.6 Flash up to 65,536, Qwen3.8 27B up to 32,768 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Gemini 3.6 Flash accepts text, images, PDFs, audio and video; Qwen3.8 27B accepts text, images and video. Gemini 3.6 Flash handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Qwen3.8 27B publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Gemini 3.6 Flash is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Qwen3.8 27B is the newest, released Aug 14, 2026. Gemini 3.6 Flash came out Jul 21, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: Gemini 3.6 Flash Mar 2026.
How do you decide the winner?
Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Nov 2, 2026.
Related comparisons
- Add Muse Spark 1.1Three-way comparison
- Gemini 3.6 Flash vs Muse Spark 1.1Meta · ECI 154.2
- Gemini 3.6 Flash vs DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813DeepSeek · ECI 155.9
- Gemini 3.6 Flash vs GLM-5.3Z.ai (Zhipu) · ECI 156.2
- Gemini 3.6 Flash vs Grok 4.5xAI · ECI 154.4
- Qwen3.8 27B vs Inkling SmallThinking Machines · ECI 150.5
- Qwen3.8 27B vs Mistral Large 4Mistral AI · ECI 150.6
