Qwen3.8-27B vs Qwen3.8 Flash
Qwen3.8-27B and Qwen3.8 Flash are closely matched at 44.8 and 48.7 on the LLM Stats Score. Qwen3.8 Flash is 4.6x cheaper per token.
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Updated for 2026
Which is better?
Qwen3.8-27B and Qwen3.8 Flash are closely matched on the overall LLM Stats Score at 44.8 and 48.7.
In the 18 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Qwen3.8 Flash wins 18; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.
On price, Qwen3.8 Flash is roughly 4.6x 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 Qwen3.8-27B
- you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune
Choose Qwen3.8 Flash
- you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 18 of 18 exact shared results
- cost matters — it's about 4.6x 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
26 reported for Qwen3.8-27B · 22 for Qwen3.8 Flash
Qwen3.8-27B outperforms in 0 benchmarks, while Qwen3.8 Flash is better at 18 benchmarks (Agents' Last Exam, AndroidWorld, CharXiv-R, ClawEval-MM, CoWorkBench, DeepSWE 1.1, ERQA, GPQA, Humanity's Last Exam, IFBench, Job Bench, LiveCodeBench v6, MathVision, NL2Repo, RealWorldQA, RecreationBench, SWE-Bench Pro, Vision2Web).
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, Qwen3.8-27B ($0.40/1M tokens) is 2.7x more expensive than Qwen3.8 Flash ($0.15/1M tokens).
For output processing, Qwen3.8-27B ($3.00/1M tokens) is 6.4x more expensive than Qwen3.8 Flash ($0.47/1M tokens).
In conclusion, Qwen3.8-27B is more expensive than Qwen3.8 Flash.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Model Size
Parameter count comparison
Qwen3.8 Flash has 97.2B more parameters than Qwen3.8-27B, making it 349.9% larger.
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
Qwen3.8 Flash accepts 1,000,000 input tokens compared to Qwen3.8-27B's 262,144 tokens. Qwen3.8-27B can generate longer responses up to 262,144 tokens, while Qwen3.8 Flash is limited to 131,072 tokens.
Input capabilities
Documented input modalities across available providers
Both Qwen3.8-27B and Qwen3.8 Flash support multimodal inputs.
They are both capable of processing various types of data, offering versatility in application.
Qwen3.8-27B
Qwen3.8 Flash
License
Usage and distribution terms
Qwen3.8-27B 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
Qwen3.8-27B was released on 2026-08-14, while Qwen3.8 Flash was released on 2026-08-26.
Qwen3.8 Flash is 0 month newer than Qwen3.8-27B.
Aug 14, 2026
1 months ago
Aug 26, 2026
3 weeks ago
1w newerKnowledge Cutoff
When training data ends
Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.
Unable to compare the recency of their training data.
Provider Availability
Qwen3.8-27B is available from DeepInfra, FriendliAI. Qwen3.8 Flash is available from Novita.
Qwen3.8-27B
Qwen3.8 Flash
Outputs Comparison
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against Qwen3.8-27B and Qwen3.8 Flash side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
FAQ
Common questions about Qwen3.8-27B vs Qwen3.8 Flash.