o3 vs Qwen3.8 Flash
Qwen3.8 Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 49.6 to 31.3. Qwen3.8 Flash is 15.2x 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 31.3, ranking #16 overall.
In the 4 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 15.2x 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 o3
- you want predictable pricing at $2.00/M input and $8.00/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 4 of 4 exact shared results
- cost matters — it's about 15.2x 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.
Capability indexes
Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks
Individual benchmarks
22 reported for o3 · 22 for Qwen3.8 Flash
o3 outperforms in 0 benchmarks, while Qwen3.8 Flash is better at 4 benchmarks (CharXiv-R, ERQA, GPQA, Humanity's Last Exam).
Qwen3.8 Flash 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, o3 ($2.00/1M tokens) is 13.3x more expensive than Qwen3.8 Flash ($0.15/1M tokens).
For output processing, o3 ($8.00/1M tokens) is 17.0x more expensive than Qwen3.8 Flash ($0.47/1M tokens).
In conclusion, o3 is more expensive than Qwen3.8 Flash.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
Qwen3.8 Flash accepts 1,000,000 input tokens compared to o3's 200,000 tokens. Qwen3.8 Flash can generate longer responses up to 131,072 tokens, while o3 is limited to 100,000 tokens.
Input capabilities
Documented input modalities across available providers
Both o3 and Qwen3.8 Flash support multimodal inputs.
They are both capable of processing various types of data, offering versatility in application.
o3
Qwen3.8 Flash
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
Proprietary
Closed source
Release Timeline
When each model was launched
o3 was released on 2025-04-16, while Qwen3.8 Flash was released on 2026-08-26.
Qwen3.8 Flash is 17 months newer than o3.
Apr 16, 2025
1.4 years ago
Aug 26, 2026
4 days ago
1.4yr newerKnowledge Cutoff
When training data ends
o3 has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2024-05-31, while Qwen3.8 Flash's cutoff date is not specified.
We can confirm o3's training data extends to 2024-05-31, but cannot make a direct comparison without Qwen3.8 Flash's cutoff date.
May 2024
—
Provider Availability
o3 is available from OpenAI. Qwen3.8 Flash is available from Novita.
o3
Qwen3.8 Flash
Outputs Comparison
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against o3 and Qwen3.8 Flash side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
FAQ
Common questions about o3 vs Qwen3.8 Flash.