Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Qwen3.8-27B
Qwen3.8-27B has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Command A+ vs Qwen3.8-27B
Updated September 28, 2026. Rank says Qwen3.8-27B is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.
Both of these models will change. Get the price, version and retirement notices for the pair, each with its source. Follow model changes
Share or export
Decision reading
Qwen3.8-27B has the higher public score estimate, 55.26 versus 36.22, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner. 2 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
- Shared results
- 2
- Command A+ only
- 3
- Qwen3.8-27B only
- 31
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
Estimated: Command A+ and Qwen3.8-27BHow the comparison works
Which one for your work
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
Command A+ is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limitedAgentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Command A+ is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limitedChat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-ratesCache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. Command A+ does not fit this workload in one request. Command A+ has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Qwen3.8-27B has no comparable published API token rate.
Confidence: rate-fallbackRepository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Which one for a specific job
Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.
The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.
26.1Command A+48.7Qwen3.8-27B
Directional only · BenchAlign v5.7
Qwen3.8-27B scores higher, but at least one score rests on Estimated evidence or a different benchmark set. Directional only, no winner.
Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.
Same basis rules as the category table below
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
3 Command A+ only
2 Shared
31 Qwen3.8-27B only
5 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Shape of the matched evidence
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
CharXivMultimodal
Normalized gap 37.5Command A+:52.7%Qwen3.8-27B:90.2%
Bars run 0–100 on each benchmark’s normalized display scale
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.7 lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.
Agentic
Directional only- Command A+
- 19.6
- Estimated · #100/117
- Qwen3.8-27B
- 61.2
- Supported · #18/117
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 2 vs 8 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Coding
Directional only- Command A+
- 26.1
- Estimated · #104/142
- Qwen3.8-27B
- 48.7
- Supported · #45/142
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 0 vs 8 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Multimodal
Directional only- Command A+
- 16.1
- #49/50
- Qwen3.8-27B
- 80.9
- #11/50
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 2 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Knowledge
Directional only- Command A+
- 29.2
- Estimated · #147/168
- Qwen3.8-27B
- 49.2
- Supported · #63/168
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 0 vs 6 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Instruction following
Directional only- Command A+
- 89.2
- #21/124
- Qwen3.8-27B
- 83.2
- #45/124
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- Command A+
- 58.5
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Qwen3.8-27B
- 78.7
- #8/27
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Command A+
- Not ranked
- Qwen3.8-27B
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Command A+
- Not ranked
- Qwen3.8-27B
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Command A+ | Qwen3.8-27B | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 19.6Estimated · #100/117 | 61.2Supported · #18/117 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.7 lane · 2 vs 8 public rows | Directional only |
| Coding | 26.1Estimated · #104/142 | 48.7Supported · #45/142 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.7 lane · 0 vs 8 public rows | Directional only |
| Multimodal | 16.1#49/50 | 80.9#11/50 | Directional onlyProvisional lane · 2 vs 1 weighted rows | Directional only |
| Knowledge | 29.2Estimated · #147/168 | 49.2Supported · #63/168 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.7 lane · 0 vs 6 public rows | Directional only |
| Instruction following | 89.2#21/124 | 83.2#45/124 | Directional onlyProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | 58.5Unranked · 2 rankable rows | 78.7#8/27 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.7) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
Supported evidence per lane · bars run 0–100Methodology
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- Command A+
- $0.0075
- Fits in one request
- Qwen3.8-27B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
Qwen3.8-27B has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Command A+
- $0.155
- Fits in one request
- Qwen3.8-27B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
Qwen3.8-27B has no comparable published API token rate.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Command A+
- $0.65
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
- Qwen3.8-27B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
Command A+ does not fit this workload in one request. Command A+ has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Qwen3.8-27B has no comparable published API token rate.
Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationCommand A+Qwen3.8-27B
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Command A+
128K
Qwen3.8-27B
API model ID
Command A+
Not sourced
Qwen3.8-27B
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Command A+
Not published
Qwen3.8-27B
No comparable hosted API rate
Qwen3.8-27B model cardDocumented inputs
Command A+
Not sourced
Qwen3.8-27B
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Command A+
Not sourced
Qwen3.8-27B
Not sourced
Provider availability
Command A+
Not sourced
Qwen3.8-27B
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Command A+
Reasoning
Qwen3.8-27B
Reasoning
Weight access
Command A+
Open Weight
Qwen3.8-27B
Open Weight
License
Command A+
Open Weight
Qwen3.8-27B
Open Weight
Release date
Command A+
2026-05-20
Qwen3.8-27B
2026-08-05
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
- Quality signal
- Qwen3.8-27B has the higher public score estimate, 55.26 versus 36.22, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- Qwen3.8-27B has the larger documented window (262K).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Questions
Which is better, Command A+ or Qwen3.8-27B?
Qwen3.8-27B has the higher public score estimate, 55.26 versus 36.22, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.
Which is better for coding, Command A+ or Qwen3.8-27B?
Qwen3.8-27B scores higher for coding on the public lane, 48.7 to 26.1. Command A+ is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for coding from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Command A+ or Qwen3.8-27B?
Qwen3.8-27B scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 61.2 to 19.6. Command A+ is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic tasks, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for agentic tasks from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which costs less, Command A+ or Qwen3.8-27B?
Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.
Which has the larger context window, Command A+ or Qwen3.8-27B?
Qwen3.8-27B has the larger documented context window: 262K, compared with 128K.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence36 rows
Agentic
τ²-bench results
Command A+85%SourceQwen3.8-27B—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Command A+17.6%SourceQwen3.8-27B58.4%SourceQwen3.8-27B leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Command A+—Qwen3.8-27B73.0%SourceNot directly comparable
CoWorkBench
Command A+—Qwen3.8-27B70.7%SourceNot directly comparable
JobBench
Command A+—Qwen3.8-27B33.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Agents' Last Exam
Command A+—Qwen3.8-27B42.9%SourceNot directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Command A+—Qwen3.8-27B84.3%SourceNot directly comparable
WebArena-Verified
Command A+—Qwen3.8-27B64.8%SourceNot directly comparable
AndroidWorld
Command A+—Qwen3.8-27B81.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Command A+—Qwen3.8-27B73.0%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Command A+—Qwen3.8-27B61.7%SourceNot directly comparable
NL2Repo
Command A+—Qwen3.8-27B42.3%SourceNot directly comparable
DeepSWE
Command A+—Qwen3.8-27B42.2%SourceNot directly comparable
LiveCodeBench v6
Command A+—Qwen3.8-27B90.3%SourceNot directly comparable
VulcanBench v3
Command A+—Qwen3.8-27B82.6%SourceNot directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Command A+—Qwen3.8-27B84.0%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE-bench (Vals)
Command A+—Qwen3.8-27B86.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Multimodal
MMMU
Command A+75.1%SourceQwen3.8-27B—Not directly comparable
MMMU-Pro
Command A+63%SourceQwen3.8-27B—Not directly comparable
CharXiv
Command A+52.7%SourceQwen3.8-27B90.2%SourceQwen3.8-27B leads this result
MathVision
Command A+—Qwen3.8-27B90.0%SourceNot directly comparable
MathVision w/ Python
Command A+—Qwen3.8-27B94.6%SourceNot directly comparable
BabyVision
Command A+—Qwen3.8-27B65.7%SourceNot directly comparable
BabyVision w/ Python
Command A+—Qwen3.8-27B85.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Vision2Web
Command A+—Qwen3.8-27B62.9%SourceNot directly comparable
CharXiv w/o tools
Command A+—Qwen3.8-27B83.7%SourceNot directly comparable
OmniDocBench 1.5
Command A+—Qwen3.8-27B91.1%SourceNot directly comparable
RealWorldQA
Command A+—Qwen3.8-27B85.9%SourceNot directly comparable
ERQA
Command A+—Qwen3.8-27B65.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
GPQA
Command A+—Qwen3.8-27B89.2%SourceNot directly comparable
GPQA-D
Command A+—Qwen3.8-27B89.2%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE
Command A+—Qwen3.8-27B30.8%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
Command A+—Qwen3.8-27B30.8%SourceNot directly comparable
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
Command A+—Qwen3.8-27B88.9%SourceNot directly comparable
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Command A+—Qwen3.8-27B84.3%SourceNot directly comparable
Instruction following
IFBench
Command A+—Qwen3.8-27B79.5%SourceNot directly comparable
36 public results · 2 shared
Watch Command A+ vs Qwen3.8-27B
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.
Last updated September 28, 2026