The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Gemini 3.6 Flash vs Qwen3.8-27B

Gemini 3.6 Flash and Qwen3.8-27B are closely matched at 43.4 and 45.2 on the LLM Stats Score. Qwen3.8-27B is 2.9x cheaper per token.

Google · Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Gemini 3.6 Flash and Qwen3.8-27B are closely matched on the overall LLM Stats Score at 43.4 and 45.2.

In the 5 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Qwen3.8-27B wins 3; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.

On price, Qwen3.8-27B is roughly 2.9x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.

Gemini 3.6 Flash also accepts a larger context window (1,048,576 input tokens), making it the stronger choice for long documents and large codebases.

Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.

Choose Gemini 3.6 Flash

  • you process long inputs — it offers a 1,048,576 token context window

Choose Qwen3.8-27B

  • you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 3 of 5 exact shared results
  • cost matters — it's about 2.9x cheaper per token
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Aug 2026
  • you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Gemini 3.6 Flash
Google
Qwen3.8-27B
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
43.4
#37
45.2
#30
Reasoning
40.2
#52
44.8
#30
Coding
29.2
#53
31.8
#40
Agents
28.0
#40
30.8
#32
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
2 of 5
3 of 5
Input price
$1.50 / M
$0.40 / M
Output price
$7.50 / M
$3.00 / M
Context window
1,048,576
262,144

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

2 shared
Index
Gemini 3.6 Flash
Qwen3.8-27B
Vision
31.8#23
33.3#18
Multimodal
33.3#17
37.3#6
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

7 reported for Gemini 3.6 Flash · 26 for Qwen3.8-27B

5 shared

Gemini 3.6 Flash outperforms in 2 benchmarks (DeepSWE 1.1, Terminal-Bench 2.1), while Qwen3.8-27B is better at 3 benchmarks (CharXiv-R, OSWorld-Verified, SWE-Bench Pro).

Qwen3.8-27B has a slight edge in benchmark performance.

Thu Sep 10 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Qwen3.8-27B costs less

For input processing, Gemini 3.6 Flash ($1.50/1M tokens) is 3.8x more expensive than Qwen3.8-27B ($0.40/1M tokens).

For output processing, Gemini 3.6 Flash ($7.50/1M tokens) is 2.5x more expensive than Qwen3.8-27B ($3.00/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Gemini 3.6 Flash is more expensive than Qwen3.8-27B.*

* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens

Lowest available price from all providers
Thu Sep 10 2026 • llm-stats.com
Google
Gemini 3.6 Flash
Input tokens$1.50
Output tokens$7.50
Best providerGoogle
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3.8-27B
Input tokens$0.40
Output tokens$3.00
Best providerDeepinfra
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Gemini 3.6 Flash accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to Qwen3.8-27B's 262,144 tokens. Qwen3.8-27B can generate longer responses up to 262,144 tokens, while Gemini 3.6 Flash is limited to 65,536 tokens.

Google
Gemini 3.6 Flash
Input1,048,576 tokens
Output65,536 tokens
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3.8-27B
Input262,144 tokens
Output262,144 tokens
Thu Sep 10 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Both Gemini 3.6 Flash and Qwen3.8-27B support multimodal inputs.

They are both capable of processing various types of data, offering versatility in application.

Gemini 3.6 Flash

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Qwen3.8-27B

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Gemini 3.6 Flash is licensed under a proprietary license, while Qwen3.8-27B uses Apache 2.0.

License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.

Gemini 3.6 Flash

Proprietary

Closed source

Qwen3.8-27B

Apache 2.0

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Gemini 3.6 Flash was released on 2026-07-21, while Qwen3.8-27B was released on 2026-08-14.

Qwen3.8-27B is 1 month newer than Gemini 3.6 Flash.

Gemini 3.6 Flash

Jul 21, 2026

1 months ago

Qwen3.8-27B

Aug 14, 2026

3 weeks ago

3w newer

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Gemini 3.6 Flash has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2026-03-31, while Qwen3.8-27B's cutoff date is not specified.

We can confirm Gemini 3.6 Flash's training data extends to 2026-03-31, but cannot make a direct comparison without Qwen3.8-27B's cutoff date.

Gemini 3.6 Flash

Mar 2026

Qwen3.8-27B

—

Provider Availability

Gemini 3.6 Flash is available from Google. Qwen3.8-27B is available from DeepInfra, FriendliAI.

Gemini 3.6 Flash

google logo
Google
Input Price:Input: $1.50/1MOutput Price:Output: $7.50/1M

Qwen3.8-27B

deepinfra logo
Deepinfra
Input Price:Input: $0.40/1MOutput Price:Output: $3.00/1M
friendli logo
FriendliAI
* Prices shown are per million tokens

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against Gemini 3.6 Flash and Qwen3.8-27B side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Gemini 3.6 Flash
✓ Preferred
Qwen3.8-27B
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Gemini 3.6 Flash vs Qwen3.8-27B.

Which is better, Gemini 3.6 Flash or Qwen3.8-27B?

Gemini 3.6 Flash and Qwen3.8-27B are closely matched on the LLM Stats Score at 43.4 and 45.2. Gemini 3.6 Flash is made by Google and Qwen3.8-27B is made by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their capability indexes, individual benchmarks, pricing, and limits above.

How does Gemini 3.6 Flash compare to Qwen3.8-27B in benchmarks?

Gemini 3.6 Flash scores CharXiv-R: 89.4%, OSWorld-Verified: 83.0%, Terminal-Bench 2.1: 78.0%, MLE-Bench: 63.9%, SWE-Bench Pro: 58.7%. Qwen3.8-27B scores MathVision: 94.6%, OmniDocBench 1.5: 91.1%, LiveCodeBench v6: 90.3%, CharXiv-R: 90.2%, GPQA: 89.2%.

Is Gemini 3.6 Flash cheaper than Qwen3.8-27B?

Qwen3.8-27B is 3.8x cheaper for input tokens. Gemini 3.6 Flash costs $1.50/M input and $7.50/M output via google. Qwen3.8-27B costs $0.40/M input and $3.00/M output via deepinfra.

What are the context window sizes for Gemini 3.6 Flash and Qwen3.8-27B?

Gemini 3.6 Flash supports 1.0M tokens and Qwen3.8-27B supports 262K tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between Gemini 3.6 Flash and Qwen3.8-27B?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (43.4 vs 45.2), context window (1.0M vs 262K), input pricing ($1.50 vs $0.40/M), licensing (Proprietary vs Apache 2.0). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Gemini 3.6 Flash and Qwen3.8-27B?

Gemini 3.6 Flash is developed by Google and Qwen3.8-27B is developed by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team.

Related comparisons