o1 vs Qwen3.8 Flash

Qwen3.8 Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 49.6 to 21.2. Qwen3.8 Flash is 114.1x cheaper per token.

OpenAI · Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Qwen3.8 Flash leads the overall LLM Stats Score 49.6 to 21.2, ranking #16 overall.

In the 1 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Qwen3.8 Flash wins 1; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.

On price, Qwen3.8 Flash is roughly 114.1x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.

Qwen3.8 Flash also accepts a larger context window (1,000,000 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 o1

you want predictable pricing at $15.00/M input and $60.00/M output

Choose Qwen3.8 Flash

overall performance matters — it scores 49.6 and ranks #16 on LLM Stats
your work emphasizes reasoning and coding — it leads those capability indexes
you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 1 of 1 exact shared results
cost matters — it's about 114.1x cheaper per token
you process long inputs — it offers a 1,000,000 token context window
you want the most recent training data — it shipped Aug 2026

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Better token value: Qwen3.8 Flash

OpenAI

Qwen3.8 Flash

Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team

Core performance indexes

LLM Stats Score

21.2

#177 · 16 evals

49.6

#16 · 22 evals

Best

Reasoning

21.6

#167 · 15 evals

49.2

#16 · 11 evals

Best

Coding

4.8

#192 · 2 evals

36.6

#20 · 6 evals

Best

Cost, coverage & limits

Benchmark wins

0 of 1

1 of 1

Best

Input price

$15.00 / M

$0.15 / M

Best

Output price

$60.00 / M

$0.47 / M

Best

Context window

200,000

1,000,000

Best

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

4 shared

Index

Qwen3.8 Flash

Math

24.2#112 · 9 evals

32.6#55 · 2 evals

Vision

13.1#92 · 2 evals

34.4#13 · 11 evals

Tool use

13.0#92 · 2 evals

31.6#10 · 2 evals

Multimodal

16.9#72 · 2 evals

36.2#8 · 7 evals

Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

19 reported for o1 · 22 for Qwen3.8 Flash

1 shared

o1 outperforms in 0 benchmarks, while Qwen3.8 Flash is better at 1 benchmark (GPQA).

Qwen3.8 Flash significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Tue Sep 01 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Qwen3.8 Flash costs less

For input processing, o1 ($15.00/1M tokens) is 100.0x more expensive than Qwen3.8 Flash ($0.15/1M tokens).

For output processing, o1 ($60.00/1M tokens) is 127.7x more expensive than Qwen3.8 Flash ($0.47/1M tokens).

In conclusion, o1 is more expensive than Qwen3.8 Flash.*

* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens

Lowest available price from all providers

Tue Sep 01 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input tokens$15.00

Output tokens$60.00

Best providerAzure

Qwen3.8 Flash

Input tokens$0.15

Output tokens$0.47

Best providerNovita

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Qwen3.8 Flash accepts 1,000,000 input tokens compared to o1's 200,000 tokens. Qwen3.8 Flash can generate longer responses up to 131,072 tokens, while o1 is limited to 100,000 tokens.

Input200,000 tokens

Output100,000 tokens

Qwen3.8 Flash

Input1,000,000 tokens

Output131,072 tokens

Tue Sep 01 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Qwen3.8 Flash supports multimodal inputs, whereas o1 does not.

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

o1

Text

Images

Audio

Video

Qwen3.8 Flash

Text

Images

Audio

Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Both models are licensed under proprietary licenses.

Both models have usage restrictions defined by their respective organizations.

Proprietary

Closed source

Qwen3.8 Flash

Proprietary

Closed source

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

o1 was released on 2024-12-17, while Qwen3.8 Flash was released on 2026-08-26.

Qwen3.8 Flash is 21 months newer than o1.

Dec 17, 2024

1.7 years ago

Qwen3.8 Flash

Aug 26, 2026

5 days ago

1.7yr 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

o1 is available from Azure, OpenAI. Qwen3.8 Flash is available from Novita.

o1

Azure

Input Price:Input: $15.00/1MOutput Price:Output: $60.00/1M

OpenAI

Input Price:Input: $15.00/1MOutput Price:Output: $60.00/1M

Qwen3.8 Flash

Novita

Input Price:Input: $0.15/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.47/1M

* 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 o1 and Qwen3.8 Flash side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

✓ Preferred

Qwen3.8 Flash

Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about o1 vs Qwen3.8 Flash.

Which is better, o1 or Qwen3.8 Flash?

Qwen3.8 Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 49.6 to 21.2. o1 is made by OpenAI and Qwen3.8 Flash 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 o1 compare to Qwen3.8 Flash in benchmarks?

o1 scores GSM8k: 97.1%, MATH: 96.4%, GPQA Physics: 92.8%, MMLU: 91.8%, MGSM: 89.3%. Qwen3.8 Flash scores MathVision: 95.7%, LiveCodeBench v6: 91.9%, GPQA: 91.7%, CharXiv-R: 90.6%, RealWorldQA: 88.5%.

Is o1 cheaper than Qwen3.8 Flash?

Qwen3.8 Flash is 100.0x cheaper for input tokens. o1 costs $15.00/M input and $60.00/M output via azure. Qwen3.8 Flash costs $0.15/M input and $0.47/M output via novita.

What are the context window sizes for o1 and Qwen3.8 Flash?

o1 supports 200K tokens and Qwen3.8 Flash supports 1.0M tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between o1 and Qwen3.8 Flash?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (21.2 vs 49.6), context window (200K vs 1.0M), input pricing ($15.00 vs $0.15/M), multimodal support (no vs yes). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes o1 and Qwen3.8 Flash?

o1 is developed by OpenAI and Qwen3.8 Flash is developed by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team.

o1 vs Qwen3.8 Flash