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 |
| 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. | $0.042Darkbloom | — |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $0.21Io Net | — |
These models have no shared benchmark scores. | ||
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. | 25% | — |
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. | — | 69.3% |
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. | — | 64.9% |
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. | — | 70% |
Terminal-Bench 3.0Agentic terminal coding — command-line task completion (v3.0, much harder task set) | — | 29% |
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. | — | 64% |
CoWorkBenchLong-horizon office work — Tests long-running office tasks across fields including computer science, finance, law, medicine, and other productivity work. Higher is better. | — | 76.1% |
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. | — | 73.3% |
AutomationBenchBusiness workflows — Tests whether the AI can run real multi-step business workflows — the kind of end-to-end office processes companies want to automate — from start to finish. Higher is better. | — | 50.8% |
MMMU-ProMultimodal reasoning — A tougher version of MMMU — college-level questions that mix images, diagrams, and text together. Higher is better. | — | 82.7% |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Qwen | |
| Release date | Apr 2 2026 | Sep 2 2026 |
| Access | Open Weight | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Gemma 4vsClaude Haiku 5.5Qwen3.8-Max-0902vsClaude Haiku 5.5Gemma 4vsGPT-6.1 SolQwen3.8-Max-0902vsGPT-6.1 SolGemma 4vsMuse Spark 1.3Qwen3.8-Max-0902vsMuse Spark 1.3Gemma 4vsGrok 4.7Qwen3.8-Max-0902vsGrok 4.7Gemma 4vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashQwen3.8-Max-0902vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashGemma 4vsMistral Large 4Qwen3.8-Max-0902vsMistral Large 4Frequently asked questions
Gemma 4 and Qwen3.8-Max-0902 don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Gemma 4 shipped 153 days before Qwen3.8-Max-0902, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Gemma 4 is open weight, while Qwen3.8-Max-0902 is closed.
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Gemma 4 and Qwen3.8-Max-0902 don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.