Skip to main content
BenchLM

Data as of September 28, 2026 · How the score is built

CurrentOpen WeightReasoning

Released Aug 5, 2026262K contextQwen3.8-27B model card

Qwen3.8-27B

Decision readingQwen3.8-27B scores 55.3 out of 100 and ranks #54 of 201. This profile shows 33 source-displayable benchmark rows; its strongest eligible category is Multimodal & Grounded at #11. Published weights can be self-hosted, but infrastructure cost varies and is not a comparable API token rate.

Released Aug 5, 2026 — see all recent releases

Decision snapshot

Each value carries a field reference instead of floating alone. Markers compare this model with the current ranked and priced catalog; they are not absolute quality thresholds.

Capability

55.3/100

field median 50.3#54 of 201 ranked models

Public

#54of 201

Verified —

Price

Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies

input median $1No comparable first-party hosted token rate

Speed

46tok/s

field median 95 tok/sFirst token 47.18 s

Context

262Ktokens

field median 256,000Maximum output length is tracked separately

Strongest published evidence

Multimodal & Grounded ranks #11. Particularly strong for screenshots, documents, charts, and grounded multimodal workflows.

Validate before choosing

33 published rows leave some tracked benchmark slots empty. No comparable first-party API token rate is published.

Source-linked · 33 displayable benchmark rows

Follow model changes

Category score record

Scores and ranks appear only where published evidence can be displayed. The table keeps the score, weight, cohort, and evidence state together.

Category scores, ranks, weighting, benchmark coverage, and evidence status
CategoryScore
AgenticRank #16 of 111Percentile 86thWeight 22%8 benchmarksVerified
61.2
CodingRank #41 of 136Percentile 70thWeight 20%8 benchmarksVerified
48.7
ReasoningWeight 17%0 benchmarksNot measured
Not measured
MultimodalRank #11 of 50Percentile 80thWeight 12%10 benchmarksVerified
80.9
KnowledgeRank #59 of 160Percentile 64thWeight 12%6 benchmarksVerified
49.2
MultilingualWeight 7%0 benchmarksNot measured
Not measured
Inst. FollowingRank #45 of 124Percentile 64thWeight 5%1 benchmarkVerified
83.2
MathWeight 5%0 benchmarksNot measured
Not measured

33 of 486 tracked benchmark slots have displayable evidence · bars run 0–100

Coverage details

How much of this is verified

Coverage is split by category so a strong number never hides a thin evidence base. Verified means the row is tied to a published source; provisional rows remain visible but separate.

  1. Agentic8/8 verified
  2. Coding8/8 verified
  3. ReasoningNot measured
  4. Multimodal10/10 verified
  5. Knowledge6/6 verified
  6. MultilingualNot measured
  7. Inst. Following1/1 verified
  8. MathNot measured
Verified sourceProvisionalNot measured

Capability shape

Each axis shows percentile within that category’s eligible cohort. The comparison outline is the median of the six nearest public-score peers; a collapsed vertex means the category is not rank-eligible.

Qwen3.8-27B category percentile values

  • Agentic86th percentile
  • Coding70th percentile
  • ReasoningNot eligible
  • Multimodal80th percentile
  • Knowledge64th percentile
  • MultilingualNot eligible
  • Instruction following64th percentile
  • MathNot eligible

The dashed outline is median of 6 nearest peers.

Eligible category ranks

  1. Agentic#16/111
  2. Coding#41/136
  3. ReasoningNot ranked
  4. Multimodal#11/50
  5. Knowledge#59/160
  6. MultilingualNot ranked
  7. Inst. Following#45/124
  8. MathNot ranked
Top decileTop quartileMid-fieldNot eligible

Benchmark ledger

Coding opens by default. The marker compares each value with the best source-verified result in the catalog; provisional leaders do not set the reference. Expand the remaining categories for every published row.

Coding8 rows
Coding benchmark values, best verified comparison, weight, and source status
SWE-bench ProScore61.7%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 89.9%

Gap28.2 behindWeight26% ref. weight
DeepSWEScore42.2%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Muse Spark 1.3 · 75.4%

Gap33.2 behindWeight15% ref. weight
LiveCodeBench (Vals)LiveCodeBench, Vals AI runScore84.0%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Fable 5.1 · 90.5%

Gap6.5 behindWeight8% ref. weight
VulcanBench v3Score82.6%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Grok 4.5 · 89.9%

Gap7.3 behindWeight3% ref. weight
Terminal-Bench 2.1Score73.0%Versus best verified row

Best verified: SWE-2 · 92.8%

Gap19.8 behindWeightScored in Agentic
NL2RepoScore42.3%Versus best verified row

Best verified: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash · 65.4%

Gap23.1 behindWeightDisplay only
LiveCodeBench v6Score90.3%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Sakana Fugu-Ultra · 93.2%

Gap2.9 behindWeightDisplay only
SWE-bench (Vals)SWE-bench, Vals AI runScore86.0%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 97.0%

Gap11 behindWeightDisplay only
Agentic8 rows
Agentic benchmark values, best verified comparison, weight, and source status
Terminal-Bench 2.1Score73.0%Versus best verified row

Best verified: SWE-2 · 92.8%

Gap19.8 behindWeight8% ref. weight
OSWorld-VerifiedScore84.3%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Qwen3.8 Max · 86.1%

Gap1.8 behindWeight6% ref. weight
JobBenchScore33.4%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Muse Spark 1.3 · 64.9%

Gap31.5 behindWeight5% ref. weight
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)Terminal-Bench 2.1, Vals AI runScore58.4%Versus best verified row

Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 87.3%

Gap28.9 behindWeight3% ref. weight
Agents' Last ExamScore42.9%Versus best verified row

Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 59.3%

Gap16.4 behindWeight3% ref. weight
CoWorkBenchScore70.7%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash · 75.3%

Gap4.6 behindWeightDisplay only
WebArena-VerifiedWebArena-Verified Browser Agent BenchmarkScore64.8%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Muse Spark 1.1 · 69%

Gap4.2 behindWeightDisplay only
AndroidWorldScore81.9%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash · 87.1%

Gap5.2 behindWeightDisplay only
Multimodal10 rows
Multimodal benchmark values, best verified comparison, weight, and source status
CharXivCharXiv ReasoningScore90.2%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Qwen3.8 Max · 93.5%

Gap3.3 behindWeightWeighted 20%
MathVisionScore90.0%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Qwen3.8 Max · 95.2%

Gap5.2 behindWeightDisplay only
MathVision w/ PythonMathVision with PythonScore94.6%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Kimi K3 · 97.8%

Gap3.2 behindWeightDisplay only
BabyVisionScore65.7%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Qwen3.8 Max · 82.0%

Gap16.3 behindWeightDisplay only
BabyVision w/ PythonBabyVision with PythonScore85.6%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Qwen3.8 Max · 91.3%

Gap5.7 behindWeightDisplay only
Vision2WebScore62.9%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Qwen3.8 Max · 69.0%

Gap6.1 behindWeightDisplay only
CharXiv w/o toolsCharXiv Reasoning without toolsScore83.7%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Mythos 5 · 88.9%

Gap5.2 behindWeightDisplay only
OmniDocBench 1.5Score91.1%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Qwen3.8 Max · 92.1%

Gap1 behindWeightDisplay only
RealWorldQAScore85.9%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Qwen3.8-Flash-Next · 88.5%

Gap2.6 behindWeightDisplay only
ERQAScore65.5%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Qwen3.8 Max · 77.8%

Gap12.3 behindWeightDisplay only
Knowledge6 rows
Knowledge benchmark values, best verified comparison, weight, and source status
HLEHumanity's Last ExamScore30.8%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Fable 5.1 · 65%

Gap34.2 behindWeight44% ref. weight
HLE w/o toolsHumanity's Last Exam without toolsScore30.8%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Opus 5.5 · 64.4%

Gap33.6 behindWeight7% ref. weight
MMLU-Pro (Vals)MMLU-Pro, Vals AI runScore84.3%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Claude Fable 5.1 · 92.4%

Gap8.1 behindWeight6% ref. weight
GPQAGraduate-Level Google-Proof Q&AScore89.2%Versus best verified row

Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 96%

Gap6.8 behindWeight3% ref. weight
GPQA Diamond (Vals)GPQA Diamond, Vals AI runScore88.9%Versus best verified row

Best verified: Gemini 3.1 Pro · 95.5%

Gap6.6 behindWeight2% ref. weight
GPQA-DGPQA DiamondScore89.2%Versus best verified row

Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 96.0%

Gap6.8 behindWeightDisplay only
Inst. Following1 row
Inst. Following benchmark values, best verified comparison, weight, and source status
IFBenchInstruction Following BenchmarkScore79.5%Versus best verified row

Best verified: MAI-Thinking-1 · 85%

Gap5.5 behindWeightWeighted 70%

Bars run 0–100; the dark tick marks the best source-verified value

All 33 rows

Lineage

The sequence follows explicit supersedes links. Each score is estimated for that model; a relative can inform a sparse estimate but never sets a floor, so a newer release can score below an earlier one. Scores and prices remain blank when the corresponding public row or first-party rate is unavailable.

  1. Apr 21, 2026

    Qwen3.6-27B

    Score 46.5 · Price not listed

  2. Aug 5, 2026 · you are here

    Qwen3.8-27B

    Score 55.3 · Price not listed

Base entry

Radar

Qwen3.8-27B release history

Full release history

Radar confirmed these at the source. Use Qwen3.8-27B in your work? Explore Radar to follow supported changes and choose your alerts.

Radar

Spec sheet

Each documented value carries its source. Missing fields stay visible as not sourced or not published, rather than disappearing from the page.

API model ID
Not publishedQwen3.8-27B model card
Context window
262KQwen3.8-27B model card
Maximum output
Not sourced yet
Knowledge cutoff
Not sourced yet
Input modalities
Not sourced yet
Output modalities
Not sourced yet
Parameters
Not sourced yet
Availability
Qwen publishes the 27B dense checkpoint and a separate FP8 artifact on Hugging Face under Apache-2.0. LM Studio lists a community GGUF package for local use. Qwen Cloud says a hosted qwen3.8-27b service with a default 1M context window and built-in tools is coming soon, so no current first-party API identifier or token rate is stored.
Cloud regions
Not tracked yet
Lifecycle
Current
API capabilities
Tool calling, structured outputs, and batch support are not tracked yet
Prompt caching
Not documented in the pricing recordQwen3.8-27B model card
Self-host
Open weights available; hardware estimate not sourced
Rate limits
Not tracked yet

How to read this profile

The visual layer above carries the decisions. These notes preserve the model, ranking, coverage, and family context behind the numbers.

Qwen3.8-27B ranks #54 of 201 on the public leaderboard with a score of 55.26/100. It does not yet have enough sourced coverage for a verified position.

Qwen3.8-27B is a open weight model with a 262K context window. It uses an explicit reasoning mode, which can improve complex problem solving while adding latency and token use.

Qwen publishes the 27B dense checkpoint and a separate FP8 artifact on Hugging Face under Apache-2.0. LM Studio lists a community GGUF package for local use. Qwen Cloud says a hosted qwen3.8-27b service with a default 1M context window and built-in tools is coming soon, so no current first-party API identifier or token rate is stored.

Official exact-value snapshot from Qwen's Qwen3.8-27B model card. We keep Terminal-Bench 2.1 and LiveCodeBench v6 separate from the older weighted lanes, preserve no-Code-Interpreter and Code-Interpreter visual results on separate keys, and leave QwenSWEBench, RecreationBench, ClawEval-MM, and SWE-MM outside the schema instead of forcing them into non-equivalent fields. Qwen reports a dense 27B native vision-language model with a 262,144-token native context window extensible to 1,000,000 tokens.

Its explicit predecessor is Qwen3.6-27B. 33 of 486 tracked benchmark slots currently have displayable evidence. Missing categories stay blank.

Its strongest eligible category is Multimodal & Grounded at #11, while its lowest eligible position is Knowledge at #59. particularly strong for screenshots, documents, charts, and grounded multimodal workflows.

Last updated September 28, 2026. Runtime fields remain blank until a sourced snapshot exists.

Deployment options

Self-host and provider-specific paths stay separate from benchmark evidence so operating constraints are visible before a score becomes the whole decision.

Published weights are available, but BenchLM does not yet have a sourced parameter and VRAM profile for this exact model. Hardware cost estimates stay unavailable until that sizing record is complete.

Estimate VRAM from known parameters

Questions

How does Qwen3.8-27B perform overall in AI benchmarks?

Qwen3.8-27B ranks #54 out of 201 models on the public BenchAlign leaderboard, with a score of 55.26/100. Its evidence status is Estimated, and this profile shows 33 source-displayable benchmark rows. The label describes evidence depth, not a provider quality claim; inspect category rows before choosing a workload.

Is Qwen3.8-27B good for knowledge and understanding?

Qwen3.8-27B ranks #59 out of 160 eligible models for knowledge and understanding, with a public category score of 49.2/100. Higher-ranked alternatives are available for workloads where this category decides the choice. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.

Is Qwen3.8-27B good for coding and programming?

Qwen3.8-27B ranks #41 out of 136 eligible models for coding and programming, with a public category score of 48.7/100. Higher-ranked alternatives are available for workloads where this category decides the choice. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.

Is Qwen3.8-27B good for agentic tool use and computer tasks?

Qwen3.8-27B ranks #16 out of 111 eligible models for agentic tool use and computer tasks, with a public category score of 61.2/100. Higher-ranked alternatives are available for workloads where this category decides the choice. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.

Is Qwen3.8-27B good for multimodal and grounded tasks?

Qwen3.8-27B ranks #11 out of 50 eligible models for multimodal and grounded tasks, with a public category score of 80.9/100. Higher-ranked alternatives are available for workloads where this category decides the choice. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.

Is Qwen3.8-27B good for instruction following?

Qwen3.8-27B ranks #45 out of 124 eligible models for instruction following, with a public category score of 83.2/100. Higher-ranked alternatives are available for workloads where this category decides the choice. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.

Is Qwen3.8-27B open source?

Qwen3.8-27B is an open-weight model from Alibaba. Its weights can be downloaded for local or hosted deployment, subject to the published license. Open weight does not automatically mean open source: training data and training code may remain private, and commercial restrictions can still apply.

Does Qwen3.8-27B have full benchmark coverage on BenchLM?

No. Qwen3.8-27B currently has 55 source-displayable rows across 486 tracked benchmark slots. The profile exposes published, non-generated evidence and leaves missing categories blank until an exact evaluation is available. Coverage describes how much was measured; it is not a penalty added to an individual benchmark result.

What is the context window size of Qwen3.8-27B?

Qwen3.8-27B has a documented context window of 262K. That figure is the maximum combined prompt and retained-conversation space reported for this exact model; it is not the maximum output length. The profile keeps output limits separate because providers often publish those limits independently.

Watch Qwen3.8-27B in the weekly brief

Get one weekly email when material rank, price, availability, or benchmark evidence changes are worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.

Compare Qwen3.8-27B with every tracked model511 comparisons