Qwen3.8 Flash vs Qwen3.8 Max
Compare Qwen3.8 Flash and Qwen3.8 Max side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, Open Prompt, Classification, Object Detection, and OCR.
Compare Qwen3.8 Flash vs Qwen3.8 Max live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
Detect and compare bounding boxes across models on the same image.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Qwen3.8 Flash vs Qwen3.8 Max on Vision Evals
Qwen3.8 Max scores higher on 5 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Reasoning, where Qwen3.8 Max leads 73.5% to 37.8%.
Overall, Qwen3.8 Flash averages 70.3% (#16 of 34) against 84.0% (#3 of 34) for Qwen3.8 Max.
Qwen3.8 Flash is both cheaper ($0.0004 vs $0.0074 per sample) and faster (8.2s vs 18.0s per sample).
Qwen3.8 Flash vs Qwen3.8 Max Comparison Table
Evals updated August 27, 2026Pricing updated August 27, 2026
| Property | Qwen3.8 Flash | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Qwen | Qwen |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Aug 2026 | Aug 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 984K |
| Parameters | 125B total, 6B active (+51B N-gram embeddings) | 2.4T total, ~95B active |
| License | Custom | Apache 2.0 |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.150 | $2.00 |
| Output $/1M | $0.470 | $6.00 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 70.3% | 84.0% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0004 | $0.0074 |
| Avg speed / sample | 8.24s | 18.02s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection | 58.5% $0.0007 | 77.1% $0.013 |
| Counting | 59.5% $0.0002 | 82.4% $0.0046 |
| Identification | 90.6% $0.0001 | 90.6% $0.0027 |
| OCR | 88.9% $0.0003 | 92.8% $0.0056 |
| Data Extraction | 86.6% $0.0002 | 87.6% $0.0029 |
| Reasoning (low) | 37.8% $0.0002 | 73.5% $0.0047 |
| Reasoning (high) | 68.9% $0.0011 | 80.8% $0.011 |
Qwen3.8 Flash vs Qwen3.8 Max: Overview
Qwen3.8-Flash is a multimodal mixture-of-experts model from the Qwen team at Alibaba, and the production counterpart of the open-weight Qwen3.8-Flash-Next preview that introduces the architecture intended for the Qwen4 family. The main model carries 125 billion parameters alongside a separate 51 billion parameter N-gram embedding table, while activating roughly 6 billion parameters per token. It accepts interleaved image and text input and returns text, handling 262,144 tokens of context natively with extension to 1,000,000 tokens using YaRN. The production configuration runs with the 1M context window by default and adds built-in tool support.
Four architectural changes separate it from earlier Qwen releases: hybrid attention that pairs Gated DeltaNet for history compression with Qwen Sparse Attention, which uses a lightweight indexer to select micro-blocks of context; a Gated Residual scheme; N-gram embeddings; and training with the Muon optimizer, refined around orthogonalization accuracy and the division of parameters between Muon and AdamW. Qwen reports training cost around one ninth that of Qwen3.7-Plus, with QSA attention kernels measured up to 7.6 times faster in prefill and 4.9 times faster in decode at 1M-token context. Reported scores include 58.7 on DeepSWE 1.1, 62.5 on SWE-bench Pro, 84.5 on AndroidWorld and 95.7 on MathVision.
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 5 of the six vision tasks and averages 84.0% (#3 of 34) against 70.3% (#16 of 34) for Qwen3.8 Flash. 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 37.8%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Qwen3.8 Flash is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0004 per sample against $0.0074. Qwen3.8 Flash is priced at $0.15 per 1M input tokens and $0.47 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 Flash is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 8.2s per inference against 18.0s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.
Yes. The comparison demo on this page runs both models on the same image side by side for image captioning and open prompts in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.