Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Solar Pro 4
Solar Pro 4 has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Qwen3.8-27B vs Solar Pro 4
Updated October 25, 2026. We do not rank this pair: at least one has no public score. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.
Share or export
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. 3 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
- Shared results
- 3
- Qwen3.8-27B only
- 34
- Solar Pro 4 only
- 7
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
Supported: Qwen3.8-27BHow 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.
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
Solar Pro 4 is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Confidence: limitedAgentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Solar Pro 4 is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.
Confidence: limitedChat 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-ratesCache-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-ratesRepository 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.
46.6Qwen3.8-27B—Solar Pro 4
Not comparable · BenchAlign v5.8
The coding row is not comparable on the public lane: at least one model is not measured or not ranked there.
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.
34 Qwen3.8-27B only
3 Shared
7 Solar Pro 4 only
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.
A shared-evidence shape is not available.
BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.
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
Not comparable- Qwen3.8-27B
- 63.3
- Supported · #20/132
- Solar Pro 4
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 9 vs 4 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Coding
Not comparable- Qwen3.8-27B
- 46.6
- Supported · #53/153
- Solar Pro 4
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 9 vs 3 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Qwen3.8-27B
- 81.3
- #7/27
- Solar Pro 4
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Qwen3.8-27B
- 82.8
- #14/56
- Solar Pro 4
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Qwen3.8-27B
- 50.4
- Supported · #81/187
- Solar Pro 4
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 6 vs 2 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Qwen3.8-27B
- Not ranked
- Solar Pro 4
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Qwen3.8-27B
- 86.9
- #43/153
- Solar Pro 4
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Qwen3.8-27B
- Not ranked
- Solar Pro 4
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Qwen3.8-27B | Solar Pro 4 | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 63.3Supported · #20/132 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 9 vs 4 public rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | 46.6Supported · #53/153 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 9 vs 3 public rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | 81.3#7/27 | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 82.8#14/56 | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | 50.4Supported · #81/187 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 6 vs 2 public rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | 86.9#43/153 | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 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
- Qwen3.8-27B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Solar Pro 4
- $0.0009
- Fits in one request
Qwen3.8-27B 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 Pro 4
- $0.0186
- Fits in one request
Qwen3.8-27B 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 Pro 4
- $0.03
- Fits in one request
Qwen3.8-27B 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.
SpecificationQwen3.8-27BSolar Pro 4
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Qwen3.8-27B
Solar Pro 4
API model ID
Qwen3.8-27B
Not sourced
Solar Pro 4
solar-pro4
Upstage Solar Pro 4 launch postCached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Qwen3.8-27B
No comparable hosted API rate
Qwen3.8-27B model cardSolar Pro 4
$0.06 per 1M cached input tokens
Upstage Solar Pro 4 launch postDocumented inputs
Qwen3.8-27B
Not sourced
Solar Pro 4
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Qwen3.8-27B
Not sourced
Solar Pro 4
Not sourced
Provider availability
Qwen3.8-27B
Not sourced
Solar Pro 4
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Qwen3.8-27B
Reasoning
Solar Pro 4
Reasoning
Weight access
Qwen3.8-27B
Open Weight
Solar Pro 4
Proprietary
License
Qwen3.8-27B
Open Weight
Solar Pro 4
Proprietary
Release date
Qwen3.8-27B
2026-08-05
Solar Pro 4
2026-08-11
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 Pro 4 has the larger documented window (512K).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Questions
Which is better, Qwen3.8-27B or Solar Pro 4?
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 Pro 4?
Solar Pro 4 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 Pro 4?
Solar Pro 4 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 Pro 4?
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 Pro 4?
Solar Pro 4 has the larger documented context window: 512K, compared with 262K.
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
Qwen3.8-27B
API / mo$0
Self-host / mo$298
Break-even—
Solar Pro 4
API / mo$1,125
Self-host / moNot listed
Break-even—
Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence44 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Qwen3.8-27B73.0%SourceSolar Pro 457.0%SourceQwen3.8-27B leads this result
CoWorkBench
Qwen3.8-27B70.7%SourceSolar Pro 4—Not directly comparable
JobBench
Qwen3.8-27B33.4%SourceSolar Pro 4—Not directly comparable
Agents' Last Exam
Qwen3.8-27B42.9%SourceSolar Pro 4—Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Qwen3.8-27B84.3%SourceSolar Pro 4—Not directly comparable
WebArena-Verified
Qwen3.8-27B64.8%SourceSolar Pro 4—Not directly comparable
AndroidWorld
Qwen3.8-27B81.9%SourceSolar Pro 4—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Qwen3.8-27B58.4%SourceSolar Pro 4—Not directly comparable
MazeBench
Qwen3.8-27B0%SourceSolar Pro 4—Not directly comparable
BrowseComp
Qwen3.8-27B—Solar Pro 449.2%SourceNot directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Qwen3.8-27B—Solar Pro 461.4%SourceNot directly comparable
APEX-Agents
Qwen3.8-27B—Solar Pro 418.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Qwen3.8-27B73.0%SourceSolar Pro 457.0%SourceQwen3.8-27B leads this result
SWE-bench Pro
Qwen3.8-27B61.7%SourceSolar Pro 4—Not directly comparable
NL2Repo
Qwen3.8-27B42.3%SourceSolar Pro 4—Not directly comparable
DeepSWE
Qwen3.8-27B42.2%SourceSolar Pro 4—Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench v6
Qwen3.8-27B90.3%SourceSolar Pro 4—Not directly comparable
VulcanBench v3
Qwen3.8-27B82.6%SourceSolar Pro 4—Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Qwen3.8-27B84.0%SourceSolar Pro 4—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench (Vals)
Qwen3.8-27B86.0%SourceSolar Pro 4—Not directly comparable
Bug Hunt Bench
Qwen3.8-27B15.0 fixesSourceSolar Pro 4—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Verified
Qwen3.8-27B—Solar Pro 470.6%SourceNot directly comparable
LiveCodeBench
Qwen3.8-27B—Solar Pro 487.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Multimodal
ExtractBench (LlamaIndex)
Qwen3.8-27B89.75%SourceSolar Pro 4—Not directly comparable
ParseBench
Qwen3.8-27B69.72%SourceSolar Pro 4—Not directly comparable
MathVision
Qwen3.8-27B90.0%SourceSolar Pro 4—Not directly comparable
MathVision w/ Python
Qwen3.8-27B94.6%SourceSolar Pro 4—Not directly comparable
BabyVision
Qwen3.8-27B65.7%SourceSolar Pro 4—Not directly comparable
BabyVision w/ Python
Qwen3.8-27B85.6%SourceSolar Pro 4—Not directly comparable
Vision2Web
Qwen3.8-27B62.9%SourceSolar Pro 4—Not directly comparable
CharXiv w/o tools
Qwen3.8-27B83.7%SourceSolar Pro 4—Not directly comparable
CharXiv
Qwen3.8-27B90.2%SourceSolar Pro 4—Not directly comparable
OmniDocBench 1.5
Qwen3.8-27B91.1%SourceSolar Pro 4—Not directly comparable
RealWorldQA
Qwen3.8-27B85.9%SourceSolar Pro 4—Not directly comparable
ERQA
Qwen3.8-27B65.5%SourceSolar Pro 4—Not directly comparable
Knowledge
GPQA
Qwen3.8-27B89.2%SourceSolar Pro 4—Not directly comparable
GPQA-D
Qwen3.8-27B89.2%SourceSolar Pro 489.0%SourceQwen3.8-27B leads this result
HLE
Qwen3.8-27B30.8%SourceSolar Pro 4—Not directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
Qwen3.8-27B30.8%SourceSolar Pro 4—Not directly comparable
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
Qwen3.8-27B88.9%SourceSolar Pro 4—Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Qwen3.8-27B84.3%SourceSolar Pro 4—Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro
Qwen3.8-27B—Solar Pro 486.3%SourceNot directly comparable
Instruction following
IFBench
Qwen3.8-27B79.5%SourceSolar Pro 4—Not directly comparable
Math
AIME26
Qwen3.8-27B—Solar Pro 495.3%SourceNot directly comparable
44 public results · 3 shared
Watch Qwen3.8-27B vs Solar Pro 4
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 6,100+ subscribers.
Last updated October 25, 2026