Beam 1.0 vs Qwen3 Max Thinking
Beam 1.0 leads the LLM Stats Score 44.6 to 32.6. Beam 1.0 is 4.0x cheaper per token.
Reflection AI · Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Updated for 2026
Which is better?
Beam 1.0 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 44.6 to 32.6, ranking #46 overall.
In the 8 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Beam 1.0 wins 8; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.
On price, Beam 1.0 is roughly 4.0x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.
Beam 1.0 also accepts a larger context window (1,048,576 input tokens), making it the stronger choice for long documents and large codebases.
Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.
Choose Beam 1.0
- overall performance matters — it scores 44.6 and ranks #46 on LLM Stats
- your work emphasizes reasoning and coding — it leads those capability indexes
- you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 8 of 8 exact shared results
- cost matters — it's about 4.0x cheaper per token
- you process long inputs — it offers a 1,048,576 token context window
- you want the most recent training data — it shipped Oct 2026
- you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune
Choose Qwen3 Max Thinking
- you want predictable pricing at $1.20/M input and $6.00/M output
At a glance
The differences that matter most.
Capability indexes
Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks
Individual benchmarks
22 reported for Beam 1.0 · 34 for Qwen3 Max Thinking
Beam 1.0 outperforms in 8 benchmarks (AA-LCR, AIME 2026, BrowseComp, GPQA, IFBench, LongBench v2, SWE-bench Multilingual, SWE-Bench Verified), while Qwen3 Max Thinking is better at 0 benchmarks.
Beam 1.0 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.
Human preference
Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores
Pricing Analysis
Price comparison per million tokens
For input processing, Beam 1.0 ($0.40/1M tokens) is 3.0x cheaper than Qwen3 Max Thinking ($1.20/1M tokens).
For output processing, Beam 1.0 ($1.20/1M tokens) is 5.0x cheaper than Qwen3 Max Thinking ($6.00/1M tokens).
In conclusion, Qwen3 Max Thinking is more expensive than Beam 1.0.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Model Size
Parameter count comparison
Qwen3 Max Thinking has 498.7B more parameters than Beam 1.0, making it 99.5% larger.
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
Beam 1.0 accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to Qwen3 Max Thinking's 256,000 tokens. Qwen3 Max Thinking can generate longer responses up to 256,000 tokens, while Beam 1.0 is limited to 131,072 tokens.
License
Usage and distribution terms
Beam 1.0 is licensed under Apache 2.0, while Qwen3 Max Thinking uses a proprietary license.
License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.
Apache 2.0
Open weights
Proprietary
Closed source
Release Timeline
When each model was launched
Beam 1.0 was released on 2026-10-16, while Qwen3 Max Thinking was released on 2026-02-13.
Beam 1.0 is 8 months newer than Qwen3 Max Thinking.
Oct 16, 2026
4 days ago
8mo newerFeb 13, 2026
8 months ago
Knowledge Cutoff
When training data ends
Beam 1.0 has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2026-06-30, while Qwen3 Max Thinking's cutoff date is not specified.
We can confirm Beam 1.0's training data extends to 2026-06-30, but cannot make a direct comparison without Qwen3 Max Thinking's cutoff date.
Jun 2026
—
Provider Availability
Beam 1.0 is available from Together, Reflection AI. Qwen3 Max Thinking is available from DeepInfra.
Beam 1.0
Qwen3 Max Thinking
Outputs Comparison
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against Beam 1.0 and Qwen3 Max Thinking side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
FAQ
Common questions about Beam 1.0 vs Qwen3 Max Thinking.