Alibaba / Qwen, released Jul 19, 2026

Qwen3.8 Max Previewprice, context, benchmarks and release details

Provisional: not enough results to rank yet 6% confidence 6 percent, Low confidence, 1 of 7 expected sources in
50.9
SI Score
Not ranked yet
Input, per 1M tokens
not yet reported
Output, per 1M tokens
not yet reported
Context window
1Mmodels.devPublished source fact Retrieved Oct 9, 2026 · MIT
Open source ↗
Max output
131Kmodels.devPublished source fact Retrieved Oct 9, 2026 · MIT
Open source ↗
Released
Jul 19, 2026models.devPublished source fact Retrieved Oct 9, 2026 · MIT
Open source ↗

How the score breaks down

Coding (weight 40 percent) 77.1
Math (weight 15 percent) —
Preference (weight 15 percent) —
Reasoning (weight 30 percent) 58.4

Weights: reasoning 30%, math 15%, coding 40%, preference 15%. Results use fixed 0–100 scales before averaging, and thin evidence is pulled toward 50. Method si-v3-retained-evidence-2, computed Oct 9, 2026, 06:15 UTC.

Around it on the leaderboard

  1. 1 Claude Fable 5.1 80.2
  2. 2 Claude Opus 5.5 78.4
  3. 3 GPT-6 Astra 77.5
  4. 4 Claude Fable 5 76.8
  5. 5 Claude Opus 5 74.9

Full leaderboard

Benchmark results

5 benchmarks, 5 results

Each row shows the best published result. Where a model was tested at several settings, such as reasoning effort, open the row to see each one. Hover or tap a value for its source.

GPQA Diamondreasoning 92.6%Official model cards via models.devLab-reported; metric accuracy; transcribed by MIT models.dev catalog; not independently evaluated [variant] xhighPublished Aug 3, 2026 Retrieved Oct 9, 2026 · factual citation; MIT transcription
Open source ↗
92.6
Humanity's Last Examreasoning 43.6%Official model cards via models.devLab-reported; metric accuracy; transcribed by MIT models.dev catalog; not independently evaluated [variant] xhigh, no toolsPublished Aug 3, 2026 Retrieved Oct 9, 2026 · factual citation; MIT transcription
Open source ↗
43.6
Humanity's Last Exam (with tools)reasoning 56.2%Official model cards via models.devLab-reported; metric accuracy; transcribed by MIT models.dev catalog; not independently evaluated [variant] xhigh, with toolsPublished Aug 3, 2026 Retrieved Oct 9, 2026 · factual citation; MIT transcription
Open source ↗
56.2
SWE-bench Procoding 67.7%Official model cards via models.devLab-reported; metric resolve rate; transcribed by MIT models.dev catalog; not independently evaluated [variant] xhigh; Claude CodePublished Aug 3, 2026 Retrieved Oct 9, 2026 · factual citation; MIT transcription
Open source ↗
67.7
Terminal-Bench 2.1coding 86.6%Official model cards via models.devLab-reported; metric accuracy; transcribed by MIT models.dev catalog; not independently evaluated [variant] xhigh; 2.1Published Aug 3, 2026 Retrieved Oct 9, 2026 · factual citation; MIT transcription
Open source ↗
86.6

Normalization uses a fixed 0–100 scale for each unit, independent of other models. Compare evaluation conditions before reading a small gap as decisive. “Lab-reported” marks the provider's own published figure.

Details and sources

Open weights
Nomodels.devPublished source fact Retrieved Oct 9, 2026 · MIT
Open source ↗
License
not yet reported
Input modalities
text, image, videomodels.devPublished source fact Retrieved Oct 9, 2026 · MIT
Open source ↗
First seen by SuperIndex
Oct 8, 2026
Coverage
4% of expected source weight

Reported (1)

  • Official model cards via models.devOct 8, 2026

Awaiting (6)

  • ARC Prize13% of weight
  • Epoch AI Benchmarking25% of weight
  • Humanity’s Last Exam13% of weight
  • LiveBench13% of weight
  • LMArena / Arena25% of weight
  • Terminal-Bench6% of weight

Confidence rises as pending sources publish. Some sources never cover some models, so confidence reaches 100% at 80% of expected weight.

What changed

All releases · RSS feed

Alerts on this device

What to be alerted about
RSS feed