Gemini 3.1 Pro vs Qwen3.8 Max

Updated October 29, 2026. Rank cannot separate these two. Price, access, and your workload decide. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.

Decision reading

Qwen3.8 Max has the higher public point estimate, 64.86 versus 64.41. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. 17 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Model A

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Google

64.41/100

Estimated · Public rank #34

Conditional range 54.7–74.1

Model B

Qwen3.8 Max

Alibaba

64.86/100

Supported · Public rank #33

90% interval 56.0–73.7

Shared results: 17
Gemini 3.1 Pro only: 14
Qwen3.8 Max only: 49
Like-for-like categories: 4 / 8

Estimated: Gemini 3.1 Pro · Supported: Qwen3.8 Max. Conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.How 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.

Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Qwen3.8 Max
Qwen3.8 Max has the higher public coding point estimate, 52.7 to 39.1, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Qwen3.8 Max
Qwen3.8 Max has the higher public agentic point estimate, 66 to 40.9, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Confidence: limited

Show secondary and unsupported calls

Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
No clear pick
The documented context windows are equal.
Confidence: documented
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

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.

Pick the job you would use them for

The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.

39.1Gemini 3.1 Pro52.7Qwen3.8 Max

Like-for-like · BenchAlign v5.8

Qwen3.8 Max has the higher coding point estimate. Conditional score ranges do not establish rank confidence.

Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.

Open the coding leaderboard Shortlist models for this job

Same basis rules as the category table below

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.

FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Math
Normalized gap 19.5
Gemini 3.1 Pro:26.829%
Qwen3.8 Max:46.341%
Shared source
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Math
Normalized gap 15.1
Gemini 3.1 Pro:59.649%
Qwen3.8 Max:74.737%
Shared source
CharXivMultimodal
Normalized gap 13.3
Gemini 3.1 Pro:80.2%
Qwen3.8 Max:93.5%
Gemini 3.1 Pro source Qwen3.8 Max source
MMLU-Pro (Vals)Knowledge
Normalized gap 2.4
Gemini 3.1 Pro:91.0%
Qwen3.8 Max:88.6%
Gemini 3.1 Pro source Qwen3.8 Max source
HLE w/o toolsKnowledge
Normalized gap 1.8
Gemini 3.1 Pro:45.4%
Qwen3.8 Max:43.6%
Gemini 3.1 Pro source Qwen3.8 Max source

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 v5.8 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

Like-for-like

Gemini 3.1 Pro: 40.9; Supported · #73/135
Qwen3.8 Max: 66.0; Supported · #16/135
Basis: BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 7 vs 18 public rows
Reading: Qwen3.8 Max leads

Coding

Like-for-like

Gemini 3.1 Pro: 39.1; Supported · #70/156
Qwen3.8 Max: 52.7; Supported · #38/156
Basis: BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 6 vs 13 public rows
Reading: Qwen3.8 Max leads · intervals overlap

Multimodal

Like-for-like

Gemini 3.1 Pro: 81.1; #18/58
Qwen3.8 Max: 91.9; #2/58
Basis: Provisional lane · 2 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading: Qwen3.8 Max leads

Knowledge

Like-for-like

Gemini 3.1 Pro: 66.4; Supported · #25/179
Qwen3.8 Max: 65.5; Supported · #28/179
Basis: BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 6 vs 6 public rows
Reading: Gemini 3.1 Pro leads · intervals overlap

Instruction following

Directional only

Gemini 3.1 Pro: 90.3; #27/157
Qwen3.8 Max: 94.7; #2/157
Basis: Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading: Directional only

Reasoning

Not comparable

Gemini 3.1 Pro: 58.2; Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Qwen3.8 Max: 87.0; Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Basis: Provisional lane · 2 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable

Gemini 3.1 Pro: Not ranked
Qwen3.8 Max: Not ranked
Basis: Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Math

Not comparable

Gemini 3.1 Pro: 65.0; Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Qwen3.8 Max: 78.9; Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Basis: Provisional lane · 2 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Category scores with the server-provided evidence basis for Gemini 3.1 Pro and Qwen3.8 Max
Category	Gemini 3.1 Pro	Qwen3.8 Max	Basis	Reading
Agentic	40.9Supported · #73/135	66.0Supported · #16/135	Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 7 vs 18 public rows	Qwen3.8 Max leads
Coding	39.1Supported · #70/156	52.7Supported · #38/156	Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 6 vs 13 public rows	Qwen3.8 Max leads · intervals overlap
Multimodal	81.1#18/58	91.9#2/58	Like-for-likeProvisional lane · 2 vs 2 weighted rows	Qwen3.8 Max leads
Knowledge	66.4Supported · #25/179	65.5Supported · #28/179	Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 6 vs 6 public rows	Gemini 3.1 Pro leads · intervals overlap
Instruction following	90.3#27/157	94.7#2/157	Directional onlyProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows	Directional only
Reasoning	58.2Unranked · 2 rankable rows	87.0Unranked · 2 rankable rows	Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 2 weighted rows	Not comparable
Multilingual	Not ranked	Not ranked	Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows	Not comparable
Math	65.0Unranked · 2 rankable rows	78.9Unranked · 2 rankable rows	Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 2 weighted rows	Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.8) 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

Gemini 3.1 Pro: $0.008; Fits in one request
Qwen3.8 Max: API rate not published; Fits in one request

Qwen3.8 Max has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Gemini 3.1 Pro: $0.136; Fits in one request
Qwen3.8 Max: API rate not published; Fits in one request

Qwen3.8 Max has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

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

Gemini 3.1 Pro: $0.2; Fits in one request
Qwen3.8 Max: API rate not published; Fits in one request; Cached-input rate unavailable

Qwen3.8 Max 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.

SpecificationGemini 3.1 ProQwen3.8 Max

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Google Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview model documentation

Qwen3.8 Max

Alibaba Cloud Model Studio pricing

API model ID

Gemini 3.1 Pro

gemini-3.1-pro-preview

Google Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview model documentation

Qwen3.8 Max

qwen3.8-max

Alibaba Cloud Model Studio pricing

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

$0.2 per 1M cached input tokens

Google Gemini API pricing

Qwen3.8 Max

No comparable hosted API rate

Alibaba Cloud Model Studio pricing

Documented inputs

Gemini 3.1 Pro

text, image, video, audio, pdf

Google Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview model documentation

Qwen3.8 Max

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Gemini 3.1 Pro

text

Google Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview model documentation

Qwen3.8 Max

Not sourced

Provider availability

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Preview · Gemini API, Google AI Studio

Google Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview model documentation

Qwen3.8 Max

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Reasoning

Qwen3.8 Max

Reasoning

Weight access

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Proprietary

Qwen3.8 Max

Open Weight

License

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Proprietary

Qwen3.8 Max

Open Weight

Release date

Gemini 3.1 Pro

2026-02-19

Qwen3.8 Max

2026-08-03

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 Max has the higher public point estimate, 64.86 versus 64.41. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Workload cost: A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff: Both models list 1M.

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

Questions

Which is better, Gemini 3.1 Pro or Qwen3.8 Max?

Qwen3.8 Max has the higher public point estimate, 64.86 versus 64.41. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.

Which is better for coding, Gemini 3.1 Pro or Qwen3.8 Max?

Qwen3.8 Max has the higher public coding point estimate, 52.7 to 39.1, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Gemini 3.1 Pro or Qwen3.8 Max?

Qwen3.8 Max has the higher public agentic tasks point estimate, 66 to 40.9, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.

Which costs less, Gemini 3.1 Pro or Qwen3.8 Max?

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, Gemini 3.1 Pro or Qwen3.8 Max?

Both models list the same context window, 1M.

Self-host vs API cost

Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

API / mo$10,500

Self-host / moNot listed

Break-even—

Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.

Qwen3.8 Max

API / mo$0

Self-host / mo$57,606

Break-even—

Model the full break-even

Benchmark evidence

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

Browse raw public benchmark evidence80 rows

Agentic

Claw-Eval
Gemini 3.1 Pro57.8%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
DeepSearchQA
Gemini 3.1 Pro69.7%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
τ²-bench results
Gemini 3.1 Pro95.6%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
Gemini 3.1 Pro56.87%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
ResearchClawBench
Gemini 3.1 Pro13.3%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Gemini 3.1 Pro70.8%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max67.4%
Source
Gemini 3.1 Pro leads this result
MazeBench
Gemini 3.1 Pro1%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max0%
Source
Gemini 3.1 Pro leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Gemini 3.1 Pro—
Qwen3.8 Max86.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
CoWorkBench
Gemini 3.1 Pro—
Qwen3.8 Max74.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
JobBench
Gemini 3.1 Pro—
Qwen3.8 Max53.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
skillsBench
Gemini 3.1 Pro—
Qwen3.8 Max70.2%
Source
Not directly comparable
Agents' Last Exam
Gemini 3.1 Pro—
Qwen3.8 Max52.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
AutomationBench
Gemini 3.1 Pro—
Qwen3.8 Max27.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
Toolathlon-Verified
Gemini 3.1 Pro—
Qwen3.8 Max72.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
WideResearch
Gemini 3.1 Pro—
Qwen3.8 Max81.9%
Source
Not directly comparable
HLE w/ tools
Gemini 3.1 Pro—
Qwen3.8 Max56.2%
Source
Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Gemini 3.1 Pro—
Qwen3.8 Max86.1%
Source
Not directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
Gemini 3.1 Pro—
Qwen3.8 Max19.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
WebArena-Verified
Gemini 3.1 Pro—
Qwen3.8 Max66.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
AndroidWorld
Gemini 3.1 Pro—
Qwen3.8 Max85.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
MobileWorld
Gemini 3.1 Pro—
Qwen3.8 Max77.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
Hermes Index
Gemini 3.1 Pro—
Qwen3.8 Max36.2%
Source
Not directly comparable
Hermes Bench
Gemini 3.1 Pro—
Qwen3.8 Max70.5%
Source
Not directly comparable

Coding

LiveCodeBench Pro
Gemini 3.1 Pro82.9%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
React Native Evals
Gemini 3.1 Pro78.9%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
Vibe Code Bench
Gemini 3.1 Pro32.03%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Gemini 3.1 Pro88.5%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max87.9%
Source
Gemini 3.1 Pro leads this result
SWE-bench (Vals)
Gemini 3.1 Pro78.8%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max85.6%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max leads this result
PostTrainBench v1.1
Gemini 3.1 Pro22.0%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Gemini 3.1 Pro—
Qwen3.8 Max86.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Gemini 3.1 Pro—
Qwen3.8 Max67.7%
Source
Not directly comparable
DeepSWE
Gemini 3.1 Pro—
Qwen3.8 Max56.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
NL2Repo
Gemini 3.1 Pro—
Qwen3.8 Max55.9%
Source
Not directly comparable
FrontierSWE
Gemini 3.1 Pro—
Qwen3.8 Max73.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
MLS-Bench Lite
Gemini 3.1 Pro—
Qwen3.8 Max41.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
PaperBench
Gemini 3.1 Pro—
Qwen3.8 Max93.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
VulcanBench v3
Gemini 3.1 Pro—
Qwen3.8 Max81.2%
Source
Not directly comparable
OpenHarmony Bench
Gemini 3.1 Pro—
Qwen3.8 Max60.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
FrontierSWE v2
Gemini 3.1 Pro—
Qwen3.8 Max15.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
Bug Hunt Bench
Gemini 3.1 Pro—
Qwen3.8 Max25.7 fixes
Source
Not directly comparable

Reasoning

ARC-AGI-2
Gemini 3.1 Pro77.1%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
ARC-AGI-3
Gemini 3.1 Pro0.4%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
MRCRv2
Gemini 3.1 Pro—
Qwen3.8 Max92.9%
Source
Not directly comparable
LongBench v2
Gemini 3.1 Pro—
Qwen3.8 Max66.3%
Source
Not directly comparable

Multimodal

ParseBench
Gemini 3.1 Pro69.14%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
MMMU-Pro
Gemini 3.1 Pro83.9%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max82.3%
Source
Gemini 3.1 Pro leads this result
CharXiv
Gemini 3.1 Pro80.2%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max93.5%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max leads this result
ERQA
Gemini 3.1 Pro69.4%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max77.8%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max leads this result
SimpleVQA
Gemini 3.1 Pro72.4%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max75.0%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max leads this result
ScreenSpot Pro
Gemini 3.1 Pro84.4%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max84.5%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max leads this result
ZeroBench
Gemini 3.1 Pro29.0%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max24.0%
Source
Gemini 3.1 Pro leads this result
MedXpertQA (MM)
Gemini 3.1 Pro81.3%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max80.4%
Source
Gemini 3.1 Pro leads this result
MathVision
Gemini 3.1 Pro—
Qwen3.8 Max95.2%
Source
Not directly comparable
MathVision w/ Python
Gemini 3.1 Pro—
Qwen3.8 Max97.7%
Source
Not directly comparable
BabyVision
Gemini 3.1 Pro—
Qwen3.8 Max82.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
BabyVision w/ Python
Gemini 3.1 Pro—
Qwen3.8 Max91.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
ZeroBench w/ Python
Gemini 3.1 Pro—
Qwen3.8 Max49.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
Vision2Web
Gemini 3.1 Pro—
Qwen3.8 Max69.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
CharXiv w/o tools
Gemini 3.1 Pro—
Qwen3.8 Max88.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
OmniDocBench 1.5
Gemini 3.1 Pro—
Qwen3.8 Max92.1%
Source
Not directly comparable
OCRBench V2
Gemini 3.1 Pro—
Qwen3.8 Max74.2%
Source
Not directly comparable
CC-OCR
Gemini 3.1 Pro—
Qwen3.8 Max79.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
RealWorldQA
Gemini 3.1 Pro—
Qwen3.8 Max88.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
PerceptionBench
Gemini 3.1 Pro—
Qwen3.8 Max63.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
Video-MME (with subtitle)
Gemini 3.1 Pro—
Qwen3.8 Max90.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
VideoMMMU
Gemini 3.1 Pro—
Qwen3.8 Max88.7%
Source
Not directly comparable
MMVU
Gemini 3.1 Pro—
Qwen3.8 Max82.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
MLVU (M-Avg)
Gemini 3.1 Pro—
Qwen3.8 Max90.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
LVBench
Gemini 3.1 Pro—
Qwen3.8 Max81.8%
Source
Not directly comparable

Knowledge

GPQA-D
Gemini 3.1 Pro94.3%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max92.6%
Source
Gemini 3.1 Pro leads this result
HLE w/o tools
Gemini 3.1 Pro45.4%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max43.6%
Source
Gemini 3.1 Pro leads this result
HealthBench Hard
Gemini 3.1 Pro20.6%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
MedXpertQA (Text)
Gemini 3.1 Pro71.5%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
Gemini 3.1 Pro95.5%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max93.7%
Source
Gemini 3.1 Pro leads this result
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Gemini 3.1 Pro91.0%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max88.6%
Source
Gemini 3.1 Pro leads this result
GPQA
Gemini 3.1 Pro—
Qwen3.8 Max92.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
HLE
Gemini 3.1 Pro—
Qwen3.8 Max43.6%
Source
Not directly comparable

Instruction following

IFBench
Gemini 3.1 Pro—
Qwen3.8 Max82.8%
Source
Not directly comparable

Math

FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Shared source
Gemini 3.1 Pro59.649%
Qwen3.8 Max74.737%
Qwen3.8 Max leads this result
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
Shared source
Gemini 3.1 Pro26.829%
Qwen3.8 Max46.341%
Qwen3.8 Max leads this result

80 public results · 17 shared

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Watch Gemini 3.1 Pro vs Qwen3.8 Max

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

Read a sample issue

Join 6,100+ subscribers.

Last updated October 29, 2026

Gemini 3.1 Pro vs Qwen3.8 Max

Decision reading

Which one for your work

Coding work

Agentic work

Long documents

Chat turn cost

Cache-heavy agent loop cost

Repository review cost

Which one for a specific job

What is actually comparable

Shape of the matched evidence

Category results, on a stated basis

Agentic

Coding

Multimodal

Knowledge

Instruction following

Reasoning

Multilingual

Math

What each workload costs

Chat turn

Repository review

Cache-heavy agent loop

Specification differences

Context window

API model ID

Cached-input rate

Documented inputs

Documented outputs

Provider availability

Reasoning profile

Weight access

License

Release date

If you already use one of these models

Questions

Which is better, Gemini 3.1 Pro or Qwen3.8 Max?

Which is better for coding, Gemini 3.1 Pro or Qwen3.8 Max?

Which is better for agentic tasks, Gemini 3.1 Pro or Qwen3.8 Max?

Which costs less, Gemini 3.1 Pro or Qwen3.8 Max?

Which has the larger context window, Gemini 3.1 Pro or Qwen3.8 Max?

Self-host vs API cost

Benchmark evidence

Agentic

Coding

Reasoning

Multimodal

Knowledge

Instruction following

Math

Related comparisons

Watch Gemini 3.1 Pro vs Qwen3.8 Max