Compare AI models
| Specifications | ||
ParametersA rough measure of how big the model is. More parameters usually means more capable and more expensive to run, though it is a poor guide on its own — a smaller, newer model often beats a larger, older one. | — | 2.4T |
Context windowHow much text the model can hold in mind at once — your question, any documents you attach, the conversation so far, and its own reply. Go past it and the earliest part falls out of view. | 1M | 1M |
| API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins | ||
Cheapest inputLowest input rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. The cheapest endpoint may run a quantised build or a shorter context — see "Available from" on the model page. | $0.375Google | $2.00Alibaba |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $1.875Google | $6.00Alibaba |
| Benchmarks | ||
DeepSWE 1.1Agentic coding — Artificial Analysis' independent test of deep, agentic software-engineering work — the AI has to plan and carry out substantial coding tasks end to end. (Version 1.1 of the test.) Higher is better. | 71% | 56.6% |
Terminal-Bench 2.1Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Higher is better. | 89.4% | 86.6% |
CharXiv ReasoningChart reasoning — Can the AI read and reason about complex charts and figures, not just text? Higher is better. | 86.2% | 88.4% |
CheatBenchCheating rate — Measures how often AI agents try to cheat on difficult assignments, such as reading hidden answers, copying work or manipulating grading. The overall score gives equal weight to ten categories; the sycophancy category measures how far an agent shifts its beliefs toward a user's stated views. Scores describe each model in its tested agent setup, and task success is measured separately. Lower is better. | 75.2% | — |
BullshitBench v2Nonsense detection — Given a confidently-worded but nonsensical prompt, does the AI spot that it makes no sense and push back — instead of playing along and inventing an answer? The score is how often it clearly called out the nonsense. Higher is better. | — | 95% |
SWE-Bench ProAgentic coding — Can the AI fix real bugs in real software? It's handed actual problems from open-source projects and has to write code that genuinely solves them. Higher is better. | — | 67.7% |
CursorBench 4.0Agentic coding — Cursor's own test of coding agents on ambiguous, multi-file tasks taken from real Cursor sessions — editing, refactoring, investigating a codebase, understanding what the user meant, managing jobs and following a design. Cursor runs each model at several reasoning efforts; each release here carries the score of its best listed effort. Scores aren't comparable with earlier CursorBench versions. Higher is better. | 39.6% | — |
PaperBenchResearch reproduction — reproducing the results of an ML research paper end to end | — | 93% |
Next.js EvalsNext.js coding — Vercel's open eval of how well AI coding agents build and migrate real Next.js apps — measured as the share of tasks the agent completes successfully. Higher is better. | 90% | — |
NL2Repo-BenchRepo-level code generation — Tests whether the AI can turn a natural-language requirement into working code across an entire repository, not just produce a single function or patch. Higher is better. | — | 55.9% |
QwenSWEBench V2Software engineering — Qwen's in-house coding benchmark, second version, built around complex real-world software-engineering tasks. Scores are not comparable with the first version. Higher is better. | — | 55.1% |
Terminal-Bench 4.0Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Version 4.0 recalibrated how much time, CPU and memory each task gets, removed eight tasks and fixed nineteen, so fewer runs fail for reasons that have nothing to do with the model. Scores are not comparable with earlier versions. Higher is better. | 19.1% | — |
Terminal-Bench 3.0Agentic terminal coding — command-line task completion (v3.0, much harder task set) | — | 11.3% |
JobBenchProfessional tool use — Tests the AI on professional workplace tasks that require using real work tools — the kind of multi-step jobs an office worker handles. Higher is better. | — | 53.4% |
CoWorkBenchLong-horizon office work — Tests long-running office tasks across fields including computer science, finance, law, medicine, and other productivity work. Higher is better. | — | 74.8% |
Toolathlon-VerifiedPersonal tool use — Tests how well the AI uses everyday personal tools and apps to get things done — a human-checked version of Toolathlon. Higher is better. | — | 72.5% |
Humanity's Last Exam · with toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects. “With tools” means the AI is allowed to search the web or run code while answering. Higher is better. | — | 43.6% |
Humanity's Last Exam (Verified)Multidisciplinary reasoning — The re-checked edition of Humanity's Last Exam: the same extremely hard expert questions, minus the ones found to be flawed or wrongly answered. Scores on it run lower than on the original exam, so read the two as separate tests rather than a before-and-after. Higher is better. | 54.9% | — |
ARC-AGI-2Abstract reasoning — Puzzle-style tests of abstract reasoning and pattern-finding — the kind of thing people find easy but AIs often struggle with. Higher is better. | 89.2% | — |
BioMysteryBench · hardBiology — Real unsolved-style biology puzzles — the AI has to reason its way to an answer the way a research biologist would. The “hard” split contains the toughest cases. Higher is better. | 56.5% | — |
BioMysteryBench · human solvedBiology — Real biology puzzles that human experts have managed to crack — can the AI reach the same answers? Higher is better. | 88.8% | — |
LAB-Bench 2Biology — Everyday tasks from a working biology lab — reading protocols, interpreting figures and sequence data, and answering the practical questions a researcher hits at the bench. Higher is better. | 86.2% | — |
OSWorld 2.0Agentic computer use — Can the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Version 2.0 is a harder, refreshed task set. Higher is better. | 59% | — |
OSWorld-VerifiedAgentic computer use — Can the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Higher is better. | — | 86.1% |
Finance Agent v2Agentic financial analysis — Tests the AI on real financial-analysis work, like digging through reports and making sound decisions. Higher is better. | 61.4% | — |
Harvey's Legal Agent BenchmarkAgentic legal work — Harvey's test of whether an AI agent can complete real legal work — drafting and reviewing documents, working with spreadsheets and presentations, and navigating files the way a lawyer's assistant would. Higher is better. | 10% | — |
GDPval-AA v2Knowledge work — economically valuable knowledge work (v2, re-based Elo) | 1545 | — |
GDP.PDFDocument comprehension — Real professional PDFs — filings, reports, technical documents — with questions an expert in that field would ask. Tests whether the AI reads the page as a document, layout and figures included, rather than as loose text. Higher is better. | 35% | — |
LVBenchVideo understanding — Can the AI follow a very long video — up to an hour — and answer questions that need details from far apart in it? Higher is better. | 87.1% | — |
LVBench · agenticVideo understanding — The same long-video test, run with the AI free to navigate the video itself — skipping around, replaying sections — rather than being shown it once. Read it as a separate test from the unaided run above. Higher is better. | 87.8% | — |
BabyVisionVisual reasoning — Tests core visual reasoning — seeing and understanding images the way even young children can, which AIs often find surprisingly hard. Higher is better. | — | 82% |
MMMU-ProMultimodal reasoning — A tougher version of MMMU — college-level questions that mix images, diagrams, and text together. Higher is better. | — | 82.3% |
threejsevalCommunity preference (Three.js) — Every model gets the same prompt — "the Eiffel Tower", "a glass fishbowl", "a robot arm picking toys into a box" — and builds a 3D scene in Three.js. Real people then see two scenes side by side, names hidden, and vote for the one they prefer. The votes become a chess-style Elo rating on threejseval.com, averaged across all the prompts. It measures whether the scene looks and moves right to a human eye, not whether the code passes a test. Higher is better. | 1563 | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Qwen | |
| Release date | Sep 2 2026 | Aug 3 2026 |
| Access | Closed | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Gemini 3.8 FlashvsClaude Haiku 5.5Qwen3.8-MaxvsClaude Haiku 5.5Gemini 3.8 FlashvsGPT-6.1 SolQwen3.8-MaxvsGPT-6.1 SolGemini 3.8 FlashvsMuse Spark 1.3Qwen3.8-MaxvsMuse Spark 1.3Gemini 3.8 FlashvsGrok 4.7Qwen3.8-MaxvsGrok 4.7Gemini 3.8 FlashvsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashQwen3.8-MaxvsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashGemini 3.8 FlashvsMistral Large 4Qwen3.8-MaxvsMistral Large 4Frequently asked questions
Gemini 3.8 Flash leads Qwen3.8-Max on 2 of the 3 benchmarks they both report (DeepSWE 1.1, Terminal-Bench 2.1, CharXiv Reasoning). Qwen3.8-Max shipped 30 days before Gemini 3.8 Flash, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 1M (Gemini 3.8 Flash) vs 1M (Qwen3.8-Max).
On DeepSWE 1.1, Gemini 3.8 Flash leads at 71% vs Qwen3.8-Max at 56.6%. On Terminal-Bench 2.1, Gemini 3.8 Flash leads at 89.4% vs Qwen3.8-Max at 86.6%. On CharXiv Reasoning, Qwen3.8-Max leads at 88.4% vs Gemini 3.8 Flash at 86.2%.