Qwen3.8 27B vs Qwen3.8 Max
Compare Qwen3.8 27B and Qwen3.8 Max side-by-side.
Compare Qwen3.8 27B vs Qwen3.8 Max live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
These models don't share enough common tasks for a side-by-side demo. See the comparison table below for their capabilities.
Models in this comparison
Qwen3.8 27B vs Qwen3.8 Max on Vision Evals
Qwen3.8 Max scores higher on all six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Reasoning, where Qwen3.8 Max leads 73.5% to 31.8%.
Overall, Qwen3.8 27B averages 61.2% (#29 of 30) against 84.0% (#3 of 30) for Qwen3.8 Max.
Qwen3.8 27B is both cheaper ($0.0018 vs $0.0074 per sample) and faster (7.3s vs 18.0s per sample).
Qwen3.8 27B vs Qwen3.8 Max Comparison Table
Evals updated August 14, 2026Pricing updated August 15, 2026
| Property | Qwen3.8 27B | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Qwen | Qwen |
| Category | open | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Aug 2026 | Aug 2026 |
| Context Window | 262K | 984K |
| Parameters | 27.78B | 2.4T total, ~95B active |
| License | Apache 2.0 | Apache 2.0 |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.450 | $2.00 |
| Output $/1M | $3.20 | $6.00 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Classification | Demo | |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| OCR | Demo | |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | |
| Object Detection | Demo | |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 61.2% | 84.0% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0018 | $0.0074 |
| Avg speed / sample | 7.33s | 18.02s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection | 54.5% $0.0036 | 77.1% $0.013 |
| Counting | 41.9% $0.0005 | 82.4% $0.0046 |
| Identification | 78.1% $0.0005 | 90.6% $0.0027 |
| OCR | 81.4% $0.0019 | 92.8% $0.0056 |
| Data Extraction | 79.4% $0.0005 | 87.6% $0.0029 |
| Reasoning (low) | 31.8% $0.0005 | 73.5% $0.0047 |
| Reasoning (high) | 62.3% $0.0087 | 80.8% $0.011 |
Qwen3.8 27B vs Qwen3.8 Max: Overview
Qwen3.8-27B is a dense vision-language model of roughly 27.78 billion parameters from Alibaba's Qwen team, built on the architectural foundation established by the Qwen3.5 generation. It takes interleaved text, image, and video input through an integrated vision encoder and produces text, covering document and chart understanding, visual question answering, front-end code generation from visual references, and agentic computer-use workflows. The decoder is a hybrid stack of 64 layers that repeats a pattern of three Gated DeltaNet linear-attention blocks, each followed by a feed-forward block, then one grouped-query full-attention block, so only a quarter of the layers maintain a conventional key-value cache. Native context length is 262,144 tokens.
Post-training targets long-horizon agentic work, and the model exposes per-request thinking control that lets callers switch reasoning traces on or off and choose a reasoning effort level. Multi-token prediction weights are trained alongside the main network for speculative decoding. Qwen reports improvements over Qwen3.6-27B on agentic and multimodal evaluations including Terminal-Bench 2.1, OSWorld-Verified, and SWE-bench Multimodal, with additional results on MathVision, CharXiv, and an internal Vision2Web suite.
Qwen3.8 Max is the flagship tier of Alibaba's Qwen3.8 family, a sparse mixture-of-experts multimodal model with roughly 2.4 trillion total parameters of which about 95 billion activate per token, which keeps serving cost and latency well below what the total parameter count would imply. It builds on the architectural foundation established by Qwen3.5 and accepts text, images, video, and documents as input while producing text output. Reported context handling reaches close to one million tokens, with a maximum generation length of 131,072 tokens, so the model is aimed at long-horizon agentic work such as repository-scale coding, multi-step research, data analysis, and office document workflows.
For vision work the model performs image and video understanding, document and chart interpretation, text recognition inside images, and grounded visual question answering, and Alibaba reports gains concentrated in multimodal and agentic evaluation categories rather than general reasoning. Published figures include 86.6 on Terminal-Bench 2.1, 67.7 on SWE-bench Pro, 93.0 on PaperBench, 82.8 on IFBench, and 92.6 on GPQA Diamond. It is the first model in the Max tier of the Qwen line for which the team states weights will be released publicly, alongside a smaller Qwen3.8 27B checkpoint. No training or safety model card has been published.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Qwen3.8 Max performed better. It scores higher on all six vision tasks and averages 84.0% (#3 of 30) against 61.2% (#29 of 30) for Qwen3.8 27B. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.
No. On the Vision Evals Reasoning benchmark at low effort, Qwen3.8 Max leads with 73.5% against 31.8%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0018 per sample against $0.0074. Qwen3.8 27B is priced at $0.45 per 1M input tokens and $3.20 per 1M output; Qwen3.8 Max is priced at $2.00 per 1M input tokens and $6.00 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
Qwen3.8 27B is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 7.3s per inference against 18.0s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.