Qwen: Qwen3.8 27B vs Google: Gemini 3.6 Flash
Side-by-side comparison of specs, pricing, benchmark scores, and task rankings. Updated 2026-09-30.
| Qwen: Qwen3.8 27B | Google: Gemini 3.6 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Vendor | qwen | |
| Quality Score | 100 | 100 |
| Benchmark Score | 55.6 | 56.1 |
| Input Price | $0.42/M | $0.75/M |
| Output Price | $3.00/M | $3.75/M |
| Context Window | 1,000,000 | 1,048,576 |
| Max Output | 131,072 | 65,536 |
| Tool Calling | ✓ | ✓ |
| Structured Output | ✓ | ✓ |
| Reasoning Mode | ✓ | ✓ |
| Vision | ✓ | ✓ |
| Audio | - | ✓ |
| Benchmark Scores | ||
| ai_index | 55.6 | 56.1 |
The verdict
For a sample job of 1 million input tokens and 250,000 output tokens, Qwen3.8 27B costs $1.17 and Gemini 3.6 Flash costs $1.69, so Qwen3.8 27B is about 1.4 times cheaper for the same work.
Both take in a similar amount of text: 1,000,000 and 1,048,576 tokens, about 1,500 and 1,573 pages.
Only Gemini 3.6 Flash offers audio input.
Across the 13 tasks where they differ, Qwen3.8 27B scores higher on 8 (Code Completion, Code Documentation, Regex Writing and others), Gemini 3.6 Flash on 5 (Code Review, Code Refactoring, Bug Fixing and others).
Qwen3.8 27B was released in August 2026 and Gemini 3.6 Flash in July 2026.
Pick Qwen3.8 27B if you need lower cost; pick Gemini 3.6 Flash if you need audio input.
Costs use current list prices per million tokens; page counts assume about 0.75 words per token and 500 words per page.
Who wins by task?
| Task | Qwen: Qwen3.8 27B | Google: Gemini 3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Code Review | 142 | 142 |
| Code Completion | 132 | 132 |
| Code Refactoring | 144 | 145 |
| Bug Fixing | 146 | 146 |
| Code Documentation | 136 | 136 |
| Regex Writing | 124 | 124 |
| Data Analysis | 132 | 132 |
| CSV / Spreadsheet Cleanup | 135 | 135 |
| ETL Scripting | 135 | 135 |
| JSON Extraction | 131 | 131 |
| Bulk Data Labeling | 129 | 128 |
| Long-Document Summarization | 146 | 146 |
| Short-Form Summarization | 126 | 125 |
Scores reflect capability match + benchmark data + pricing for each task. Methodology →