Which model is better: Gemini 3.1 Pro or Qwen 3.8 Flash Next?
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 87.2% cheaper for input tokens ($0.16 vs. $1.25 per 1M tokens) and $0.47 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (7.8x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Qwen 3.8 Flash Next delivers lower response latency at 280ms TTFT (140ms faster than Gemini 3.1 Pro) with 185 vs. 98 tok/s throughput. Qwen 3.8 Flash Next leads coding evaluations at 81.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 71.8% for Gemini 3.1 Pro and 91.7% vs. 82.4% on GPQA Diamond.
Verified daily via automated API latency tests and official documentation.
Zero-Shot RAG Verified
Verified Performance & Unit Economics Delta (12 Dimensions)
Daily synchronized metrics across token pricing, prompt cache economics, latency, throughput, and 5 capability benchmarks.
Metric / Dimension
Gemini 3.1 Pro
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next
Net Delta / Advantage
Input Cost / 1M Tokens
$1.25
$0.16
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 7.8x cheaper
Output Cost / 1M Tokens
$10.00
$0.47
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (95.3% lower)
Prompt Cache Read / 1M
$0.310
$0.016
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 19.4x cheaper
Prompt Cache Write / 1M
$1.25
$0.20
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 6.3x cheaper
Context Window (Max Output)
1,049k (66k out)
268k (66k out)
Gemini 3.1 Pro (3.9x larger context)
Avg TTFT Response Latency
420ms
280ms
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (140ms faster)
Generation Speed (Throughput)
98 tok/s
185 tok/s
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (+87 tok/s faster)
SWE-bench Verified (Coding)
71.8%
81%
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (+9.2% lead)
GPQA Diamond (PhD STEM)
82.4%
91.7%
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (+9.3% lead)
MMLU-Pro (Multi-Discipline)
89.5%
88.4%
Gemini 3.1 Pro (+1.1% lead)
MATH-500 (Quantitative Logic)
96.8%
95.7%
Gemini 3.1 Pro (+1.1% lead)
Inference Value Score (IVR)
60 / 100
85.1 / 100
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (+25.1 pts)
Interactive Monthly Token Economics & ROI Forecaster
Model production workloads across prompt, completion, and cached context tokens, or switch models on the fly.
Choose Gemini 3.1 Pro (Google) for complex enterprise architecture planning, multi-file code refactoring, legal/financial corpus auditing, and multimodal research — offering a 1,048k context window, 420ms TTFT, and $1.25/1M input pricing ($0.310/1M cached reads).
Which is cheaper: Gemini 3.1 Pro or Qwen 3.8 Flash Next?
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is cheaper at $0.16/1M input tokens ($0.47/1M output) compared to $1.25/1M input ($10.00/1M output) for Gemini 3.1 Pro.
Which model has lower TTFT latency and higher tok/s throughput: Gemini 3.1 Pro or Qwen 3.8 Flash Next?
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next delivers faster first-token latency at 280ms TTFT (185 tok/s throughput) compared to 420ms TTFT (98 tok/s) for Gemini 3.1 Pro.
How do Gemini 3.1 Pro and Qwen 3.8 Flash Next compare on SWE-bench coding and GPQA Diamond reasoning?
On SWE-bench Verified software engineering, Gemini 3.1 Pro scores 71.8% versus 81% for Qwen 3.8 Flash Next. On GPQA Diamond graduate-level STEM reasoning, Gemini 3.1 Pro scores 82.4% versus 91.7% for Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (and 96.8% vs 95.7% on MATH-500).
When should you choose Gemini 3.1 Pro?
Choose Gemini 3.1 Pro (Google) for complex enterprise architecture planning, multi-file code refactoring, legal/financial corpus auditing, and multimodal research — offering a 1,048k context window, 420ms TTFT, and $1.25/1M input pricing ($0.310/1M cached reads).
When should you choose Qwen 3.8 Flash Next?
Choose Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (Alibaba Cloud) for next-generation open-weight multimodal MoE activating only 6B parameters per token for ultra-low-cost enterprise office automation, tool calling, and multilingual repository engineering — offering a 268k context window, 280ms TTFT, and $0.16/1M input pricing ($0.016/1M cached reads).
