Skip to main content
BenchLM
Data

GPT-4.1 mini vs Qwen3.8 Max

Updated October 29, 2026. Rank says Qwen3.8 Max is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.

Share or export
Share on XLinkedInAPI/MCP

Decision reading

Qwen3.8 Max has the higher public point estimate, 64.86 versus 28.45. Their conditional score ranges do not overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. 2 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Model A
OpenAI logo

OpenAI

28.45/100

Estimated · Public rank #183

Conditional range 14.1–42.8

Model B
Alibaba logo

Alibaba

64.86/100

Supported · Public rank #33

90% interval 56.0–73.7

Shared results
2
GPT-4.1 mini only
3
Qwen3.8 Max only
64
Like-for-like categories
1 / 8
Estimated: GPT-4.1 mini · 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.

No workload recommendation clears the current evidence threshold.

Use the matched evidence, workload costs, and sourced specifications below instead of treating a point score as a universal answer.

Show secondary and unsupported calls
  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    GPT-4.1 mini is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.

    Confidence: limited
  • Agentic work

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

    Not enough matched evidence

    GPT-4.1 mini is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.

    Confidence: limited
  • 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: rate-fallback
  • 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.

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

17.7GPT-4.1 mini52.7Qwen3.8 Max

Directional only · 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.

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.

2 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.

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.

Knowledge

Like-for-like
GPT-4.1 mini
29.9
Supported · #152/179
Qwen3.8 Max
65.5
Supported · #28/179
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 2 vs 6 public rows
Reading
Qwen3.8 Max leads

Coding

Directional only
GPT-4.1 mini
17.7
Estimated · #140/156
Qwen3.8 Max
52.7
Supported · #38/156
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 1 vs 13 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Instruction following

Directional only
GPT-4.1 mini
44.2
#115/157
Qwen3.8 Max
94.7
#2/157
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading
Directional only

Agentic

Not comparable
GPT-4.1 mini
Not ranked
Qwen3.8 Max
66.0
Supported · #16/135
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 0 vs 18 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
GPT-4.1 mini
55.2
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Qwen3.8 Max
87.0
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
GPT-4.1 mini
51.6
Unranked · 1 rankable row
Qwen3.8 Max
91.9
#2/58
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
GPT-4.1 mini
Not ranked
Qwen3.8 Max
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
GPT-4.1 mini
27.0
Unranked · 1 rankable row
Qwen3.8 Max
78.9
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Basis
Provisional lane · 1 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading
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

GPT-4.1 mini
$0.0012
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

GPT-4.1 mini
$0.0248
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

GPT-4.1 mini
$0.104
Fits in one request
Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Qwen3.8 Max
API rate not published
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable

GPT-4.1 mini has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. 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.

Cached-input rate

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

GPT-4.1 mini

Not published

Qwen3.8 Max

No comparable hosted API rate

Alibaba Cloud Model Studio pricing

Documented inputs

GPT-4.1 mini

Not sourced

Qwen3.8 Max

Not sourced

Documented outputs

GPT-4.1 mini

Not sourced

Qwen3.8 Max

Not sourced

Provider availability

GPT-4.1 mini

Not sourced

Qwen3.8 Max

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

GPT-4.1 mini

Non-Reasoning

Qwen3.8 Max

Reasoning

Weight access

GPT-4.1 mini

Proprietary

Qwen3.8 Max

Open Weight

License

GPT-4.1 mini

Proprietary

Qwen3.8 Max

Open Weight

Release date

GPT-4.1 mini

2025-04-14

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 28.45. Their conditional score ranges do not 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, GPT-4.1 mini or Qwen3.8 Max?

Qwen3.8 Max has the higher public point estimate, 64.86 versus 28.45. Their conditional score ranges do not 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, GPT-4.1 mini or Qwen3.8 Max?

Qwen3.8 Max scores higher for coding on the public lane, 52.7 to 17.7. GPT-4.1 mini 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, GPT-4.1 mini or Qwen3.8 Max?

GPT-4.1 mini is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.

Which costs less, GPT-4.1 mini 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, GPT-4.1 mini 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.

GPT-4.1 mini
API / mo$1,500
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 evidence69 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    GPT-4.1 mini—
    Qwen3.8 Max86.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CoWorkBench

    GPT-4.1 mini—
    Qwen3.8 Max74.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • JobBench

    GPT-4.1 mini—
    Qwen3.8 Max53.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • skillsBench

    GPT-4.1 mini—
    Qwen3.8 Max70.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Agents' Last Exam

    GPT-4.1 mini—
    Qwen3.8 Max52.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • AutomationBench

    GPT-4.1 mini—
    Qwen3.8 Max27.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon-Verified

    GPT-4.1 mini—
    Qwen3.8 Max72.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • WideResearch

    GPT-4.1 mini—
    Qwen3.8 Max81.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/ tools

    GPT-4.1 mini—
    Qwen3.8 Max56.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld-Verified

    GPT-4.1 mini—
    Qwen3.8 Max86.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld 2.0

    GPT-4.1 mini—
    Qwen3.8 Max19.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • WebArena-Verified

    GPT-4.1 mini—
    Qwen3.8 Max66.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • AndroidWorld

    GPT-4.1 mini—
    Qwen3.8 Max85.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MobileWorld

    GPT-4.1 mini—
    Qwen3.8 Max77.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)

    GPT-4.1 mini—
    Qwen3.8 Max67.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Hermes Index

    GPT-4.1 mini—
    Qwen3.8 Max36.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Hermes Bench

    GPT-4.1 mini—
    Qwen3.8 Max70.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MazeBench

    GPT-4.1 mini—
    Qwen3.8 Max0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Verified

    GPT-4.1 mini23.6%
    Source
    Qwen3.8 Max—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    GPT-4.1 mini—
    Qwen3.8 Max86.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Pro

    GPT-4.1 mini—
    Qwen3.8 Max67.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepSWE

    GPT-4.1 mini—
    Qwen3.8 Max56.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • NL2Repo

    GPT-4.1 mini—
    Qwen3.8 Max55.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierSWE

    GPT-4.1 mini—
    Qwen3.8 Max73.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MLS-Bench Lite

    GPT-4.1 mini—
    Qwen3.8 Max41.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • PaperBench

    GPT-4.1 mini—
    Qwen3.8 Max93.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • VulcanBench v3

    GPT-4.1 mini—
    Qwen3.8 Max81.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OpenHarmony Bench

    GPT-4.1 mini—
    Qwen3.8 Max60.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierSWE v2

    GPT-4.1 mini—
    Qwen3.8 Max15.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench (Vals)

    GPT-4.1 mini—
    Qwen3.8 Max87.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench (Vals)

    GPT-4.1 mini—
    Qwen3.8 Max85.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Bug Hunt Bench

    GPT-4.1 mini—
    Qwen3.8 Max25.7 fixes
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • MRCRv2

    GPT-4.1 mini—
    Qwen3.8 Max92.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • LongBench v2

    GPT-4.1 mini—
    Qwen3.8 Max66.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • MMMU-Pro

    GPT-4.1 mini—
    Qwen3.8 Max82.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MathVision

    GPT-4.1 mini—
    Qwen3.8 Max95.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MathVision w/ Python

    GPT-4.1 mini—
    Qwen3.8 Max97.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • BabyVision

    GPT-4.1 mini—
    Qwen3.8 Max82.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • BabyVision w/ Python

    GPT-4.1 mini—
    Qwen3.8 Max91.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ZeroBench

    GPT-4.1 mini—
    Qwen3.8 Max24.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ZeroBench w/ Python

    GPT-4.1 mini—
    Qwen3.8 Max49.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MedXpertQA (MM)

    GPT-4.1 mini—
    Qwen3.8 Max80.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ScreenSpot Pro

    GPT-4.1 mini—
    Qwen3.8 Max84.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Vision2Web

    GPT-4.1 mini—
    Qwen3.8 Max69.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv w/o tools

    GPT-4.1 mini—
    Qwen3.8 Max88.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv

    GPT-4.1 mini—
    Qwen3.8 Max93.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OmniDocBench 1.5

    GPT-4.1 mini—
    Qwen3.8 Max92.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OCRBench V2

    GPT-4.1 mini—
    Qwen3.8 Max74.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CC-OCR

    GPT-4.1 mini—
    Qwen3.8 Max79.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • RealWorldQA

    GPT-4.1 mini—
    Qwen3.8 Max88.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ERQA

    GPT-4.1 mini—
    Qwen3.8 Max77.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SimpleVQA

    GPT-4.1 mini—
    Qwen3.8 Max75.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • PerceptionBench

    GPT-4.1 mini—
    Qwen3.8 Max63.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Video-MME (with subtitle)

    GPT-4.1 mini—
    Qwen3.8 Max90.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • VideoMMMU

    GPT-4.1 mini—
    Qwen3.8 Max88.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMVU

    GPT-4.1 mini—
    Qwen3.8 Max82.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MLVU (M-Avg)

    GPT-4.1 mini—
    Qwen3.8 Max90.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • LVBench

    GPT-4.1 mini—
    Qwen3.8 Max81.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • MMLU

    GPT-4.1 mini87.5%
    Source
    Qwen3.8 Max—

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA

    GPT-4.1 mini64.2%
    Source
    Qwen3.8 Max92.6%
    Source

    Qwen3.8 Max leads this result

  • GPQA-D

    GPT-4.1 mini—
    Qwen3.8 Max92.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE

    GPT-4.1 mini—
    Qwen3.8 Max43.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/o tools

    GPT-4.1 mini—
    Qwen3.8 Max43.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA Diamond (Vals)

    GPT-4.1 mini—
    Qwen3.8 Max93.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro (Vals)

    GPT-4.1 mini—
    Qwen3.8 Max88.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Instruction following

  • IFEval

    GPT-4.1 mini88.5%
    Source
    Qwen3.8 Max—

    Not directly comparable

  • IFBench

    GPT-4.1 mini—
    Qwen3.8 Max82.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Shared source
    GPT-4.1 mini6.667%
    Qwen3.8 Max74.737%

    Qwen3.8 Max leads this result

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    GPT-4.1 mini—
    Qwen3.8 Max46.341%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

69 public results · 2 shared

Watch GPT-4.1 mini 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