The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Laguna S 2.1 vs Qwen3.8-27B

Laguna S 2.1 and Qwen3.8-27B are closely matched at 40.9 and 45.2 on the LLM Stats Score.

Poolside · Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Laguna S 2.1 and Qwen3.8-27B are closely matched on the overall LLM Stats Score at 40.9 and 45.2.

In the 3 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Qwen3.8-27B wins 3; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.

Laguna S 2.1 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 Laguna S 2.1

  • you process long inputs — it offers a 1,048,576 token context window

Choose Qwen3.8-27B

  • you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 3 of 3 exact shared results
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Aug 2026

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Laguna S 2.1
Poolside
Qwen3.8-27B
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
40.9
#51
45.2
#30
Reasoning
40.4
#49
44.8
#30
Coding
31.0
#44
31.6
#39
Agents
24.1
#48
30.4
#31
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
0 of 3
3 of 3
Input price
$0.10 / M
— / M
Output price
$0.20 / M
— / M
Context window
1,048,576
262,144

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

1 shared
Index
Laguna S 2.1
Qwen3.8-27B
Tool use
17.0#75
22.7#42
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

6 reported for Laguna S 2.1 · 26 for Qwen3.8-27B

3 shared

Laguna S 2.1 outperforms in 0 benchmarks, while Qwen3.8-27B is better at 3 benchmarks (DeepSWE 1.1, SWE-Bench Pro, Terminal-Bench 2.1).

Qwen3.8-27B significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Mon Sep 07 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

90.2B diff

Laguna S 2.1 has 90.2B more parameters than Qwen3.8-27B, making it 324.7% larger.

Poolside
Laguna S 2.1
118.0Bparameters
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3.8-27B
27.8Bparameters
118.0B
Laguna S 2.1
27.8B
Qwen3.8-27B

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Laguna S 2.1 accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to Qwen3.8-27B's 262,144 tokens. Only Qwen3.8-27B specifies output context (131,072 tokens).

Poolside
Laguna S 2.1
Input1,048,576 tokens
Output- tokens
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3.8-27B
Input262,144 tokens
Output131,072 tokens
Mon Sep 07 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Qwen3.8-27B supports multimodal inputs, whereas Laguna S 2.1 does not.

Qwen3.8-27B can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

Laguna S 2.1

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Qwen3.8-27B

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Laguna S 2.1 is licensed under OpenMDW License v1.1, while Qwen3.8-27B uses Apache 2.0.

License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.

Laguna S 2.1

OpenMDW License v1.1

Open weights

Qwen3.8-27B

Apache 2.0

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Laguna S 2.1 was released on 2026-07-21, while Qwen3.8-27B was released on 2026-08-14.

Qwen3.8-27B is 1 month newer than Laguna S 2.1.

Laguna S 2.1

Jul 21, 2026

1 months ago

Qwen3.8-27B

Aug 14, 2026

3 weeks ago

3w newer

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.

Unable to compare the recency of their training data.

No cutoff dates available

Provider Availability

Laguna S 2.1 is available from Poolside. Qwen3.8-27B is available from FriendliAI.

Laguna S 2.1

poolside logo
Poolside
Input Price:Input: $0.10/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.20/1M

Qwen3.8-27B

friendli logo
FriendliAI
* Prices shown are per million tokens

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against Laguna S 2.1 and Qwen3.8-27B side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Laguna S 2.1
✓ Preferred
Qwen3.8-27B
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Laguna S 2.1 vs Qwen3.8-27B.

Which is better, Laguna S 2.1 or Qwen3.8-27B?

Laguna S 2.1 and Qwen3.8-27B are closely matched on the LLM Stats Score at 40.9 and 45.2. Laguna S 2.1 is made by Poolside and Qwen3.8-27B is made by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their capability indexes, individual benchmarks, pricing, and limits above.

How does Laguna S 2.1 compare to Qwen3.8-27B in benchmarks?

Laguna S 2.1 scores SWE-bench Multilingual: 78.5%, Terminal-Bench 2.1: 70.2%, SWE-Bench Pro: 59.4%, Toolathlon: 49.7%, SWE Atlas - Codebase QnA: 46.2%. Qwen3.8-27B scores MathVision: 94.6%, OmniDocBench 1.5: 91.1%, LiveCodeBench v6: 90.3%, CharXiv-R: 90.2%, GPQA: 89.2%.

What are the context window sizes for Laguna S 2.1 and Qwen3.8-27B?

Laguna S 2.1 supports 1.0M tokens and Qwen3.8-27B supports 262K tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between Laguna S 2.1 and Qwen3.8-27B?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (40.9 vs 45.2), context window (1.0M vs 262K), multimodal support (no vs yes), licensing (OpenMDW License v1.1 vs Apache 2.0). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Laguna S 2.1 and Qwen3.8-27B?

Laguna S 2.1 is developed by Poolside and Qwen3.8-27B is developed by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team.

Related comparisons