Head-to-head
Qwen3.8-Flash vs Qwen3.8-Max
A 7.9-point composite gap — but the real story is the dimension mix. Same weights, unpacked: who leads where, and whether the premium is justified.
The short answer
The composites differ by 7.9 points, and their strengths do not overlap.
Stronger overall: Qwen3.8-Max. If you only run one workload, read the dimension table instead.
Overlaid radar
Same weights, same scale; overlap means parity
- Qwen3.8-Flash87.5
- Qwen3.8-Max95.4
Dimension deltas
A on the left, B on the right; 100 max per row
Qwen3.8-Flash leads 1, Qwen3.8-Max leads 7.
Spec sheet
Hard specs in one table
| Item | Qwen3.8-Flash | Qwen3.8-Max |
|---|---|---|
| Composite | 87.5 | 95.4 |
| Tier | A | S+ |
| Visual perception & grounding | 89 | 97WIN |
| Document parsing & Chinese OCR | 90 | 97WIN |
| Chart & document reasoning | 86 | 96WIN |
| Video & long-horizon reasoning | 82 | 93WIN |
| GUI agents & tool use | 87 | 95WIN |
| Generation & editing | 80 | 90WIN |
| Chinese context & culture | 88 | 95WIN |
| Ecosystem, cost & availability | 97WIN | 96 |
| Output price | ¥1.2 / M | ¥18 / M |
| Context | 256K | 1M (256K native) |
| Parameters | Undisclosed (MoE, ~12B active) | Undisclosed (MoE, trillion-scale total) |
| Licence | Open weights (Apache-2.0) | Closed commercial API (smaller siblings open) |
| Native multimodal | Yes | Yes |
| Evidence grade | B | B |
How to choose
Choose Qwen3.8-Flash if…
- High-volume product tagging and moderation
- Batch receipt structuring with flagship sampling
- Edge or low-cost on-prem deployment
- You cannot accept its limitation: Video timing is only 82; event localization drifts on long clips, so it should not carry video QA.
How to choose
Choose Qwen3.8-Max if…
- Long-document, chart-dense enterprise knowledge bases
- Whole-manual QA that needs 1M context
- Cross-app GUI agents and automation flows
- You cannot accept its limitation: At ¥18/1M output tokens it is one of the three priciest here; high-frequency image analysis gets a heavy bill.
Scenario check
Five scenarios, who holds up
| Scenario | Qwen3.8-Flash | Qwen3.8-Max | Better |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chinese receipt OCR | 90 | 97 | Qwen3.8-Max |
| Chart data extraction | 85 | 96 | Qwen3.8-Max |
| 30-min video QA | 80 | 92 | Qwen3.8-Max |
| Mobile GUI control | 86 | 95 | Qwen3.8-Max |
| Chinese cultural context | 88 | 95 | Qwen3.8-Max |
Comparison FAQ
Qwen3.8-Flash vs Qwen3.8-Max: which is stronger?
Composite: Qwen3.8-Flash 87.5, Qwen3.8-Max 95.4. Qwen3.8-Flash leads on Ecosystem, cost & availability; Qwen3.8-Max leads on Visual perception & grounding, Document parsing & Chinese OCR, Chart & document reasoning, Video & long-horizon reasoning, GUI agents & tool use, Generation & editing, Chinese context & culture. The stronger overall is Qwen3.8-Max.
How much more expensive is Qwen3.8-Flash than Qwen3.8-Max?
Qwen3.8-Flash is ¥1.2/1M output tokens; Qwen3.8-Max is ¥18/1M. On output price, Qwen3.8-Max is pricier; real cost also depends on image tokens and input share.
Can Qwen3.8-Max replace Qwen3.8-Flash?
It depends on your primary workload. If it sits in Qwen3.8-Max’s strengths (Long-document, chart-dense enterprise knowledge bases, Whole-manual QA that needs 1M context, Cross-app GUI agents and automation flows), yes. If you need High-volume product tagging and moderation, switching will cost quality.
Personal ranking · Not an official score
Every ranking, score and comparison on this page is an independent personal ranking, not an official score, and represents no vendor, institution or regulator. Scores are a subjective mapping of public evidence under our own weights — change the weights and the order changes. Disagree, or spotted a factual error? Contact the site owner: jizhi2024@foxmail.com — we check each report and log corrections in the changelog.