Skip to main content
Radar

Keep up with the models you depend on. Follow price changes, retirements, and API updates.Follow the models you depend on.

Follow model changes
Alibaba logo
Model A
Qwen3.8-27B

Alibaba

64.52/100

Supported · Public rank #41

90% interval 59.169.9

Qwen3.8-27B vs Solar Open 2

Updated September 10, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Upstage logo
Model B
Solar Open 2

Upstage

Evidence status unavailable

90% interval unavailable

Decision reading

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 resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Share or export

Share on XLinkedInSocial cardCSVJSON

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

    Solar Open 2

    Solar Open 2 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

    Solar Open 2 is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

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

    Not enough matched evidence

    Solar Open 2 is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.

    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
4
Qwen3.8-27B only
29
Solar Open 2 only
7
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign 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

Not comparable
Qwen3.8-27B
63.4
Supported · #13/152
Solar Open 2
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 8 vs 3 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Coding

Not comparable
Qwen3.8-27B
53.9
Supported · #43/151
Solar Open 2
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 8 vs 2 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
Qwen3.8-27B
77.4
#7/20
Solar Open 2
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
Qwen3.8-27B
54.1
Supported · #58/183
Solar Open 2
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 6 vs 3 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Qwen3.8-27B
Not ranked
Solar Open 2
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Qwen3.8-27B
Not ranked
Solar Open 2
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Qwen3.8-27B
80.0
#11/48
Solar Open 2
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Qwen3.8-27B
84.7
#45/123
Solar Open 2
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 1 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

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

Qwen3.8-27B
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request
Solar Open 2
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request

Qwen3.8-27B has no comparable published API token rate. Solar Open 2 has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Qwen3.8-27B
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request
Solar Open 2
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request

Qwen3.8-27B has no comparable published API token rate. Solar Open 2 has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

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

Qwen3.8-27B
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable
Solar Open 2
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable

Qwen3.8-27B has no comparable published API token rate. Solar Open 2 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

Qwen3.8-27B

Not sourced

Solar Open 2

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Qwen3.8-27B

Not sourced

Solar Open 2

Not sourced

Provider availability

Qwen3.8-27B

Not sourced

Solar Open 2

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Qwen3.8-27B

Reasoning

Solar Open 2

Reasoning

Weight access

Qwen3.8-27B

Open Weight

Solar Open 2

Open Weight

License

Qwen3.8-27B

Open Weight

Solar Open 2

Open Weight

Release date

Qwen3.8-27B

2026-08-05

Solar Open 2

2026-07-22

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
Solar Open 2 has the larger documented window (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 evidence40 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Qwen3.8-27B73.0%
    Source
    Solar Open 2

    Not directly comparable

  • CoWorkBench

    Qwen3.8-27B70.7%
    Source
    Solar Open 2

    Not directly comparable

  • JobBench

    Qwen3.8-27B33.4%
    Source
    Solar Open 2

    Not directly comparable

  • Agents' Last Exam

    Qwen3.8-27B42.9%
    Source
    Solar Open 2

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld-Verified

    Qwen3.8-27B84.3%
    Source
    Solar Open 2

    Not directly comparable

  • WebArena-Verified

    Qwen3.8-27B64.8%
    Source
    Solar Open 2

    Not directly comparable

  • AndroidWorld

    Qwen3.8-27B81.9%
    Source
    Solar Open 2

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)

    Qwen3.8-27B58.4%
    Source
    Solar Open 2

    Not directly comparable

  • terminalBenchHard

    Qwen3.8-27B
    Solar Open 228.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • APEX-Agents

    Qwen3.8-27B
    Solar Open 216.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP Atlas

    Qwen3.8-27B
    Solar Open 258.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Qwen3.8-27B73.0%
    Source
    Solar Open 2

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Qwen3.8-27B61.7%
    Source
    Solar Open 2

    Not directly comparable

  • NL2Repo

    Qwen3.8-27B42.3%
    Source
    Solar Open 2

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepSWE

    Qwen3.8-27B42.2%
    Source
    Solar Open 2

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench v6

    Qwen3.8-27B90.3%
    Source
    Solar Open 292.4%
    Source

    Solar Open 2 leads this result

  • VulcanBench v3

    Qwen3.8-27B82.6%
    Source
    Solar Open 2

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench (Vals)

    Qwen3.8-27B84.0%
    Source
    Solar Open 2

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench (Vals)

    Qwen3.8-27B86.0%
    Source
    Solar Open 2

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Qwen3.8-27B
    Solar Open 270.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA

    Qwen3.8-27B89.2%
    Source
    Solar Open 2

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA-D

    Qwen3.8-27B89.2%
    Source
    Solar Open 286.3%
    Source

    Qwen3.8-27B leads this result

  • HLE

    Qwen3.8-27B30.8%
    Source
    Solar Open 2

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/o tools

    Qwen3.8-27B30.8%
    Source
    Solar Open 228.8%
    Source

    Qwen3.8-27B leads this result

  • GPQA Diamond (Vals)

    Qwen3.8-27B88.9%
    Source
    Solar Open 2

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro (Vals)

    Qwen3.8-27B84.3%
    Source
    Solar Open 2

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro

    Qwen3.8-27B
    Solar Open 286.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • HMMT Feb 2026

    Qwen3.8-27B
    Solar Open 293.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • AIME26

    Qwen3.8-27B
    Solar Open 295.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • MathVision

    Qwen3.8-27B90.0%
    Source
    Solar Open 2

    Not directly comparable

  • MathVision w/ Python

    Qwen3.8-27B94.6%
    Source
    Solar Open 2

    Not directly comparable

  • BabyVision

    Qwen3.8-27B65.7%
    Source
    Solar Open 2

    Not directly comparable

  • BabyVision w/ Python

    Qwen3.8-27B85.6%
    Source
    Solar Open 2

    Not directly comparable

  • Vision2Web

    Qwen3.8-27B62.9%
    Source
    Solar Open 2

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv w/o tools

    Qwen3.8-27B83.7%
    Source
    Solar Open 2

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv

    Qwen3.8-27B90.2%
    Source
    Solar Open 2

    Not directly comparable

  • OmniDocBench 1.5

    Qwen3.8-27B91.1%
    Source
    Solar Open 2

    Not directly comparable

  • RealWorldQA

    Qwen3.8-27B85.9%
    Source
    Solar Open 2

    Not directly comparable

  • ERQA

    Qwen3.8-27B65.5%
    Source
    Solar Open 2

    Not directly comparable

Instruction following

  • IFBench

    Qwen3.8-27B79.5%
    Source
    Solar Open 280%
    Source

    Solar Open 2 leads this result

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Qwen3.8-27B or Solar Open 2?

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, Qwen3.8-27B or Solar Open 2?

Solar Open 2 is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Qwen3.8-27B or Solar Open 2?

Solar Open 2 is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.

Which costs less, Qwen3.8-27B or Solar Open 2?

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, Qwen3.8-27B or Solar Open 2?

Solar Open 2 has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 262K.

Related comparisons

Last updated September 10, 2026

Watch Qwen3.8-27B vs Solar Open 2

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

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.