The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Laguna S 2.1 vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

Qwen3.8-Flash-Next leads the LLM Stats Score 50.5 to 41.4.

Poolside · Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Qwen3.8-Flash-Next leads the overall LLM Stats Score 50.5 to 41.4, ranking #14 overall.

In the 4 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Qwen3.8-Flash-Next wins 4; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.

Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.

Choose Laguna S 2.1

  • you want predictable pricing at $0.10/M input and $0.20/M output

Choose Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

  • overall performance matters — it scores 50.5 and ranks #14 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes agents — it leads those capability indexes
  • you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 4 of 4 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-Flash-Next
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
41.4
#43
50.5
#14
Reasoning
41.5
#40
50.6
#12
Coding
33.1
#37
38.4
#19
Agents
25.7
#43
37.2
#12
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
0 of 4
4 of 4
Input price
$0.10 / M
— / M
Output price
$0.20 / M
— / M
Context window
1,048,576
—

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

1 shared
Index
Laguna S 2.1
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
Tool use
18.9#56
32.3#8
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

6 reported for Laguna S 2.1 · 22 for Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

4 shared

Laguna S 2.1 outperforms in 0 benchmarks, while Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is better at 4 benchmarks (DeepSWE 1.1, SWE-bench Multilingual, SWE-Bench Pro, Toolathlon).

Qwen3.8-Flash-Next significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Fri Aug 28 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

7.0B diff

Qwen3.8-Flash-Next has 7.0B more parameters than Laguna S 2.1, making it 5.9% larger.

Poolside
Laguna S 2.1
118.0Bparameters
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
125.0Bparameters
118.0B
Laguna S 2.1
125.0B
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Only Laguna S 2.1 specifies input context (1,048,576 tokens).

Poolside
Laguna S 2.1
Input1,048,576 tokens
Output- tokens
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Fri Aug 28 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Qwen3.8-Flash-Next supports multimodal inputs, whereas Laguna S 2.1 does not.

Qwen3.8-Flash-Next 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-Flash-Next

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Laguna S 2.1 is licensed under OpenMDW License v1.1, while Qwen3.8-Flash-Next uses Qwen Community License 1.0.

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-Flash-Next

Qwen Community License 1.0

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Laguna S 2.1 was released on 2026-07-21, while Qwen3.8-Flash-Next was released on 2026-08-26.

Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is 1 month newer than Laguna S 2.1.

Laguna S 2.1

Jul 21, 2026

1 months ago

Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

Aug 26, 2026

2 days ago

1mo 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

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-Flash-Next side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Laguna S 2.1
✓ Preferred
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Laguna S 2.1 vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next.

Which is better, Laguna S 2.1 or Qwen3.8-Flash-Next?

Qwen3.8-Flash-Next leads the LLM Stats Score 50.5 to 41.4. Laguna S 2.1 is made by Poolside and Qwen3.8-Flash-Next 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-Flash-Next 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-Flash-Next scores MathVision: 95.7%, LiveCodeBench v6: 91.9%, GPQA: 91.7%, CharXiv-R: 90.6%, RealWorldQA: 88.5%.

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

Laguna S 2.1 supports 1.0M tokens and Qwen3.8-Flash-Next supports an unknown number of 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-Flash-Next?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (41.4 vs 50.5), multimodal support (no vs yes), licensing (OpenMDW License v1.1 vs Qwen Community License 1.0). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Laguna S 2.1 and Qwen3.8-Flash-Next?

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

Related comparisons