gpt-oss-120bvsQwen3.8-Max-0902
gpt-oss-120b | Qwen3.8-Max-0902 | |
|---|---|---|
| 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. | 117B | 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. | 128k | 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. | $0.03AkashML | — |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $0.17AkashML | — |
| BenchmarksPublished by one model only | ||
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. | 11% | — |
SWE-Bench VerifiedCoding — Real coding tasks pulled from open-source projects — the AI has to find and fix actual bugs. A human-checked version of the original SWE-Bench. Higher is better. | 62.4% | — |
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% |
Humanity's Last Exam · no toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects, written so you can't just look up the answer. “No tools” means the AI answers on its own. Higher is better. | 14.9% | — |
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. | 19% | — |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 80.1% | — |
MMLUGeneral knowledge — A 57-subject multiple-choice exam — history, law, medicine, maths — that was the standard measure of how much a model knows from 2020 until roughly 2024, when frontier scores crowded into the high 80s and labs moved on to harder tests. The scores here were published years apart under different testing setups, so read them as a historical record rather than a like-for-like ranking. Higher is better. | 90% | — |
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 | OpenAI | Qwen |
| Release date | Aug 5 2025 | Sep 2 2026 |
| Access | Open Weight | Proprietary |
Other comparisons
gpt-oss-120bvsClaude Fable 5.1Qwen3.8-Max-0902vsClaude Fable 5.1gpt-oss-120bvsGemini 3.7 FlashQwen3.8-Max-0902vsGemini 3.7 Flashgpt-oss-120bvsMuse GlimmerQwen3.8-Max-0902vsMuse Glimmergpt-oss-120bvsGrok 4.6Qwen3.8-Max-0902vsGrok 4.6gpt-oss-120bvsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813Qwen3.8-Max-0902vsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813gpt-oss-120bvsMistral Medium 3.5Qwen3.8-Max-0902vsMistral Medium 3.5
Frequently asked questions
gpt-oss-120b and Qwen3.8-Max-0902 don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. gpt-oss-120b shipped 393 days before Qwen3.8-Max-0902, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
gpt-oss-120b has 117B parameters, while Qwen3.8-Max-0902 has 2.4T. Context windows are 128k (gpt-oss-120b) vs 1M (Qwen3.8-Max-0902). gpt-oss-120b is open weight, while Qwen3.8-Max-0902 is proprietary.
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — gpt-oss-120b and Qwen3.8-Max-0902 don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.
gpt-oss-120b was released by OpenAI on Aug 5 2025.
Qwen3.8-Max-0902 was released by Qwen on Sep 2 2026.
gpt-oss-120b has a 128k context window; Qwen3.8-Max-0902 has 1M.
gpt-oss-120b is an open weight model released by OpenAI. Qwen3.8-Max-0902 is a proprietary model released by Qwen.