Gemini 3.8 Flash vs Qwen3 Coder 480B Turbo (Venice)
On the 10 use cases both models ran, Qwen3 Coder 480B Turbo (Venice) won 7 to 3 (better outcome first, then lower cost).
Pass rate: Gemini 3.8 Flash 100% (10 runs) vs Qwen3 Coder 480B Turbo (Venice) 70% (10 runs). Average cost per run: $0.30 vs $0.0097.
| Metric | Gemini 3.8 Flash | Qwen3 Coder 480B Turbo (Venice) |
|---|---|---|
| Runs on shared use cases | 10 | 10 |
| Pass rate | 100% (10/10) | 70% (7/10) |
| Avg cost per run | $0.30 | $0.0097 |
| Avg wall time | 3m | 1m |
| Step-ins per run | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Use cases won | 3 | 7 |
Use case by use case
- AIS collision risk: closest point of approach and alert levels: Qwen3 Coder 480B Turbo (Venice) better (pass 100% vs 100%)
- Best fishing windows from tide, solunar and weather data: Qwen3 Coder 480B Turbo (Venice) better (pass 100% vs 100%)
- Best sailing angle and leg times from a polar table: Gemini 3.8 Flash better (pass 100% vs 0%)
- Boat fuel range with a reserve over a planned trip: Qwen3 Coder 480B Turbo (Venice) better (pass 100% vs 100%)
- Catch log checked against a made-up fishing regulations table: Gemini 3.8 Flash better (pass 100% vs 0%)
- Dead reckoning, estimated position with current, and computed set and drift: Qwen3 Coder 480B Turbo (Venice) better (pass 100% vs 100%)
- Diagnose why GitHub Actions stopped running: Qwen3 Coder 480B Turbo (Venice) better (pass 100% vs 100%)
- Fix three bugs in a Python repo so its tests pass: Qwen3 Coder 480B Turbo (Venice) better (pass 100% vs 100%)
- Go/no-go departure time from a gridded wind file: Qwen3 Coder 480B Turbo (Venice) better (pass 100% vs 100%)
- Water-quality sensor anomaly flags and daily means: Gemini 3.8 Flash better (pass 100% vs 0%)
Only use cases both models ran are compared; all settings of each model are grouped. How we score.