Skip to main content

Model comparison

Interfaze Beta vs Qwen3.8 Max

Updated August 3, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Interfaze Beta

Interfaze

Evidence status unavailable

90% interval unavailable

Qwen3.8 Max

Alibaba

65.4/100

Estimated · Public rank #31

90% interval 55.5–75.3

At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.

4 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.

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

    No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.

    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

  • 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

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
4
Interfaze Beta only
5
Qwen3.8 Max only
48
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8

2 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.

Knowledge

Directional only
Interfaze Beta
89.9
Qwen3.8 Max
50.2
Weighted basis
1 vs 2 rows
Reading
Directional only

Multimodal

Directional only
Interfaze Beta
71.1
Qwen3.8 Max
86.3
Weighted basis
1 vs 2 rows
Reading
Directional only

Agentic

Not comparable
Interfaze Beta
Not measured
Qwen3.8 Max
86.1
Weighted basis
0 vs 1 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Coding

Not comparable
Interfaze Beta
Not measured
Qwen3.8 Max
67.7
Weighted basis
0 vs 1 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
Interfaze Beta
Not measured
Qwen3.8 Max
78.3
Weighted basis
0 vs 2 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Interfaze Beta
Not measured
Qwen3.8 Max
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Interfaze Beta
Not measured
Qwen3.8 Max
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Interfaze Beta
Not measured
Qwen3.8 Max
82.8
Weighted basis
0 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

Interfaze Beta
$0.00325
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

Interfaze Beta
$0.0855
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

Interfaze Beta
$0.365
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

Interfaze Beta has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Qwen3.8 Max 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.

Cached-input rate

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

Interfaze Beta

Not published

Qwen3.8 Max

No comparable hosted API rate

Alibaba Cloud Model Studio pricing

Documented inputs

Interfaze Beta

Not sourced

Qwen3.8 Max

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Interfaze Beta

Not sourced

Qwen3.8 Max

Not sourced

Provider availability

Interfaze Beta

Not sourced

Qwen3.8 Max

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Interfaze Beta

Reasoning

Qwen3.8 Max

Reasoning

Weight access

Interfaze Beta

Proprietary

Qwen3.8 Max

Proprietary

License

Interfaze Beta

Proprietary

Qwen3.8 Max

Proprietary

Release date

Interfaze Beta

2026-05-11

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
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
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.

Benchmark evidence

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

Browse raw public benchmark evidence57 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Interfaze Beta
    Qwen3.8 Max86.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CoWorkBench

    Interfaze Beta
    Qwen3.8 Max74.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • JobBench

    Interfaze Beta
    Qwen3.8 Max53.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • skillsBench

    Interfaze Beta
    Qwen3.8 Max70.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Agents' Last Exam

    Interfaze Beta
    Qwen3.8 Max52.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • AutomationBench

    Interfaze Beta
    Qwen3.8 Max27.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon-Verified

    Interfaze Beta
    Qwen3.8 Max72.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • WideResearch

    Interfaze Beta
    Qwen3.8 Max81.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/ tools

    Interfaze Beta
    Qwen3.8 Max56.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld-Verified

    Interfaze Beta
    Qwen3.8 Max86.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld 2.0

    Interfaze Beta
    Qwen3.8 Max19.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • WebArena-Verified

    Interfaze Beta
    Qwen3.8 Max66.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • AndroidWorld

    Interfaze Beta
    Qwen3.8 Max85.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MobileWorld

    Interfaze Beta
    Qwen3.8 Max77.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • Spider 2.0-Lite

    Interfaze Beta52.9%
    Source
    Qwen3.8 Max

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Interfaze Beta
    Qwen3.8 Max86.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Interfaze Beta
    Qwen3.8 Max67.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • deepSwe

    Interfaze Beta
    Qwen3.8 Max56.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • NL2Repo

    Interfaze Beta
    Qwen3.8 Max55.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierSWE

    Interfaze Beta
    Qwen3.8 Max73.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MLS-Bench Lite

    Interfaze Beta
    Qwen3.8 Max41.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • PaperBench

    Interfaze Beta
    Qwen3.8 Max93.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • MRCRv2

    Interfaze Beta
    Qwen3.8 Max92.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • LongBench v2

    Interfaze Beta
    Qwen3.8 Max66.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA

    Interfaze Beta89.9%
    Source
    Qwen3.8 Max92.6%
    Source

    Qwen3.8 Max leads this result

  • GPQA-D

    Interfaze Beta89.9%
    Source
    Qwen3.8 Max92.6%
    Source

    Qwen3.8 Max leads this result

  • MMMLU

    Interfaze Beta90.9%
    Source
    Qwen3.8 Max

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE

    Interfaze Beta
    Qwen3.8 Max43.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/o tools

    Interfaze Beta
    Qwen3.8 Max43.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • OCRBench V2

    Interfaze Beta70.7%
    Source
    Qwen3.8 Max74.2%
    Source

    Qwen3.8 Max leads this result

  • olmOCR

    Interfaze Beta85.7%
    Source
    Qwen3.8 Max

    Not directly comparable

  • RefCOCO (avg)

    Interfaze Beta82.1%
    Source
    Qwen3.8 Max

    Not directly comparable

  • MMMU-Pro

    Interfaze Beta71.1%
    Source
    Qwen3.8 Max82.3%
    Source

    Qwen3.8 Max leads this result

  • MathVision

    Interfaze Beta
    Qwen3.8 Max95.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MathVision w/ Python

    Interfaze Beta
    Qwen3.8 Max97.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • BabyVision

    Interfaze Beta
    Qwen3.8 Max82.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • BabyVision w/ Python

    Interfaze Beta
    Qwen3.8 Max91.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ZeroBench

    Interfaze Beta
    Qwen3.8 Max24.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ZeroBench w/ Python

    Interfaze Beta
    Qwen3.8 Max49.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MedXpertQA (MM)

    Interfaze Beta
    Qwen3.8 Max80.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ScreenSpot Pro

    Interfaze Beta
    Qwen3.8 Max84.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Vision2Web

    Interfaze Beta
    Qwen3.8 Max69.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv w/o tools

    Interfaze Beta
    Qwen3.8 Max88.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv

    Interfaze Beta
    Qwen3.8 Max93.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OmniDocBench 1.5

    Interfaze Beta
    Qwen3.8 Max92.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CC-OCR

    Interfaze Beta
    Qwen3.8 Max79.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • RealWorldQA

    Interfaze Beta
    Qwen3.8 Max88.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ERQA

    Interfaze Beta
    Qwen3.8 Max77.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SimpleVQA

    Interfaze Beta
    Qwen3.8 Max75.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • PerceptionBench

    Interfaze Beta
    Qwen3.8 Max63.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Video-MME (with subtitle)

    Interfaze Beta
    Qwen3.8 Max90.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • VideoMMMU

    Interfaze Beta
    Qwen3.8 Max88.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMVU

    Interfaze Beta
    Qwen3.8 Max82.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MLVU (M-Avg)

    Interfaze Beta
    Qwen3.8 Max90.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • LVBench

    Interfaze Beta
    Qwen3.8 Max81.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Instruction following

  • SOB Value Acc

    Interfaze Beta79.5%
    Source
    Qwen3.8 Max

    Not directly comparable

  • IFBench

    Interfaze Beta
    Qwen3.8 Max82.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Interfaze Beta or Qwen3.8 Max?

At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.

Which is better for coding, Interfaze Beta or Qwen3.8 Max?

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

Which is better for agentic tasks, Interfaze Beta or Qwen3.8 Max?

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, Interfaze Beta 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, Interfaze Beta or Qwen3.8 Max?

Both models list the same context window, 1M.

Related comparisons

Last updated August 3, 2026

Watch Interfaze Beta 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 2,000+ readers.