Skip to main content
Radar

Five or fewer confirmed AI changes, with original sources, on mornings when something changed.A free source-linked morning brief.

Start free brief
BenchLM
Model A
dots3-note Preview

Dots Studio

68.6/100

Estimated · Public rank #21

90% interval 58.7–78.5

dots3-note Preview vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

Updated August 26, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Alibaba logo
Model B
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

Alibaba

67.5/100

Estimated · Public rank #25

90% interval 57.7–77.4

Decision reading

dots3-note Preview has the higher public score estimate, 68.61 versus 67.54, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.

9 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

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.

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    dots3-note Preview

    dots3-note Preview has the larger documented context window.

    Confidence: documented

Show secondary and unsupported calls

  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are directional rather than like-for-like.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Not enough matched evidence

    No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.

    Confidence: limited

  • Chat 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-rates

  • Cache-heavy agent loop cost

    200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Repository 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

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

Shared results
9
dots3-note Preview only
22
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next only
15
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8

3 categories use different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.

Coding

Directional only
dots3-note Preview
71.7
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
62.5
Weighted basis
2 vs 1 rows
Reading
Directional only

Knowledge

Directional only
dots3-note Preview
52.6
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
43.4
Weighted basis
1 vs 2 rows
Reading
Directional only

Instruction following

Directional only
dots3-note Preview
85.1
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
81.3
Weighted basis
2 vs 1 rows
Reading
Directional only

Agentic

Not comparable
dots3-note Preview
83.3
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
Not measured
Weighted basis
1 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
dots3-note Preview
81.4
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
Not measured
Weighted basis
1 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
dots3-note Preview
Not measured
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
dots3-note Preview
Not measured
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
dots3-note Preview
79.1
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
90.6
Weighted basis
1 vs 1 rows
Reading
Not comparable

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.

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

dots3-note Preview
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request

dots3-note Preview has no comparable published API token rate. Qwen3.8-Flash-Next has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

dots3-note Preview
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request

dots3-note Preview has no comparable published API token rate. Qwen3.8-Flash-Next has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

dots3-note Preview
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable

dots3-note Preview has no comparable published API token rate. Qwen3.8-Flash-Next has no comparable published API token rate.

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

Documented inputs

dots3-note Preview

Not sourced

Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

Not sourced

Documented outputs

dots3-note Preview

Not sourced

Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

Not sourced

Provider availability

dots3-note Preview

Not sourced

Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

dots3-note Preview

Reasoning

Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

Reasoning

Weight access

dots3-note Preview

Open Weight

Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

Open Weight

License

dots3-note Preview

Open Weight

Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

Open Weight

Release date

dots3-note Preview

2026-08-14

Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

2026-08-26

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
dots3-note Preview has the higher public score estimate, 68.61 versus 67.54, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
Workload cost
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff
dots3-note Preview has the larger documented window (512K).

Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence46 rows

Agentic

  • Claw-Eval

    dots3-note Preview73.4%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    dots3-note Preview75.1%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next—

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon-Verified

    dots3-note Preview55.6%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next73.5%
    Source

    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next leads this result

  • skillsBench

    dots3-note Preview52.8%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next—

    Not directly comparable

  • APEX-Agents

    dots3-note Preview30.8%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next—

    Not directly comparable

  • BrowseComp

    dots3-note Preview83.3%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next—

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/ tools

    dots3-note Preview52.6%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next—

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepSearchQA

    dots3-note Preview92.1%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next—

    Not directly comparable

  • WideResearch

    dots3-note Preview78.9%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next—

    Not directly comparable

  • CoWorkBench

    dots3-note Preview—
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next73.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • JobBench

    dots3-note Preview—
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next55.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Agents' Last Exam

    dots3-note Preview—
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next51.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • AndroidWorld

    dots3-note Preview—
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next84.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld 2.0

    dots3-note Preview—
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next19.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • Codeforces

    dots3-note Preview3056.0
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next—

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench v6

    dots3-note Preview91.5%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next91.9%
    Source

    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next leads this result

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    dots3-note Preview75.1%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Verified

    dots3-note Preview78.4%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE Multilingual

    dots3-note Preview75.7%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next81%
    Source

    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next leads this result

  • SWE-bench Pro

    dots3-note Preview61%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next62.5%
    Source

    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next leads this result

  • NL2Repo

    dots3-note Preview49.8%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next48.1%
    Source

    dots3-note Preview leads this result

  • deepSwe

    dots3-note Preview—
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next58.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • ARC-AGI-2

    dots3-note Preview81.4%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next—

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • HLE

    dots3-note Preview52.6%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next35.9%
    Source

    dots3-note Preview leads this result

  • GPQA

    dots3-note Preview—
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next91.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA-D

    dots3-note Preview—
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next91.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/o tools

    dots3-note Preview—
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next35.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • IMOAnswerBench

    dots3-note Preview90.9%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next—

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • SimpleVQA

    dots3-note Preview72.5%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next—

    Not directly comparable

  • MMMU-Pro

    dots3-note Preview79.1%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next—

    Not directly comparable

  • MathVision

    dots3-note Preview87.7%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next90.6%
    Source

    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next leads this result

  • ZeroBench

    dots3-note Preview19.0%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next—

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv w/o tools

    dots3-note Preview83.1%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next84.6%
    Source

    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next leads this result

  • GDP.pdf (no tools)

    dots3-note Preview60.7%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next—

    Not directly comparable

  • PerceptionBench

    dots3-note Preview53.4%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next—

    Not directly comparable

  • BabyVision

    dots3-note Preview50.0%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next—

    Not directly comparable

  • MMVU

    dots3-note Preview79.9%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next—

    Not directly comparable

  • VideoMMMU

    dots3-note Preview86.8%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next—

    Not directly comparable

  • Vision2Web

    dots3-note Preview—
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next64.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ERQA

    dots3-note Preview—
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next72.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • LVBench

    dots3-note Preview—
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next76.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • RealWorldQA

    dots3-note Preview—
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next88.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MathVision w/ Python

    dots3-note Preview—
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next95.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv

    dots3-note Preview—
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next90.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Instruction following

  • IFBench

    dots3-note Preview80.4%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next81.3%
    Source

    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next leads this result

  • IFEval

    dots3-note Preview93.9%
    Source
    Qwen3.8-Flash-Next—

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, dots3-note Preview or Qwen3.8-Flash-Next?

dots3-note Preview has the higher public score estimate, 68.61 versus 67.54, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.

Which is better for coding, dots3-note Preview or Qwen3.8-Flash-Next?

The current coding averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so BenchLM does not name a winner from them. Read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which is better for agentic tasks, dots3-note Preview or Qwen3.8-Flash-Next?

The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.

Which costs less, dots3-note Preview or Qwen3.8-Flash-Next?

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, dots3-note Preview or Qwen3.8-Flash-Next?

dots3-note Preview has the larger documented context window: 512K, compared with 262K.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated August 26, 2026

Watch dots3-note Preview vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.