Beam 1.0 vs Qwen3.8 Flash
Beam 1.0 and Qwen3.8 Flash are closely matched at 44.6 and 48.1 on the LLM Stats Score. Qwen3.8 Flash is 2.6x cheaper per token.
Reflection AI · Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Updated for 2026
Which is better?
Beam 1.0 and Qwen3.8 Flash are closely matched on the overall LLM Stats Score at 44.6 and 48.1.
In the 6 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Qwen3.8 Flash wins 4; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.
On price, Qwen3.8 Flash is roughly 2.6x 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
- 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 Qwen3.8 Flash
- you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 4 of 6 exact shared results
- cost matters — it's about 2.6x cheaper per token
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 · 22 for Qwen3.8 Flash
Beam 1.0 outperforms in 2 benchmarks (Humanity's Last Exam, SWE-Bench Pro), while Qwen3.8 Flash is better at 4 benchmarks (DeepSWE 1.1, GPQA, IFBench, SWE-bench Multilingual).
Qwen3.8 Flash shows notably better performance in the majority of 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 2.7x more expensive than Qwen3.8 Flash ($0.15/1M tokens).
For output processing, Beam 1.0 ($1.20/1M tokens) is 2.6x more expensive than Qwen3.8 Flash ($0.47/1M tokens).
In conclusion, Beam 1.0 is more expensive than Qwen3.8 Flash.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Model Size
Parameter count comparison
Beam 1.0 has 376.3B more parameters than Qwen3.8 Flash, making it 301.0% larger.
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
Beam 1.0 accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to Qwen3.8 Flash's 1,000,000 tokens. Both models can generate responses up to 131,072 tokens.
Input capabilities
Documented input modalities across available providers
Qwen3.8 Flash supports multimodal inputs, whereas Beam 1.0 does not.
Qwen3.8 Flash can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.
Beam 1.0
Qwen3.8 Flash
License
Usage and distribution terms
Beam 1.0 is licensed under Apache 2.0, while Qwen3.8 Flash 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 Qwen3.8 Flash was released on 2026-08-26.
Beam 1.0 is 2 months newer than Qwen3.8 Flash.
Oct 16, 2026
3 days ago
1mo newerAug 26, 2026
1 months ago
Knowledge Cutoff
When training data ends
Beam 1.0 has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2026-06-30, while Qwen3.8 Flash'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 Qwen3.8 Flash's cutoff date.
Jun 2026
—
Provider Availability
Beam 1.0 is available from Together, Reflection AI. Qwen3.8 Flash is available from Novita.
Beam 1.0
Qwen3.8 Flash
Outputs Comparison
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against Beam 1.0 and Qwen3.8 Flash side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
FAQ
Common questions about Beam 1.0 vs Qwen3.8 Flash.