Navigate
AI BENCHY
Advertise here

Laguna S 2.1 (high) vs Qwen3.8 27B

Qwen3.8 27B leads on average score with 5.5 vs 5.4. Local hardware cost was not measured, so cost comparisons are unavailable. Qwen3.8 27B is faster at 3.12s vs 111.60s, with pass rates of 27.3% vs 40.9%.

Last updated at: 2026-08-15

Rank
#220
Total Output Tokens
584,864
Response Time (avg)
111.60s
Total Cost
$0.114
Rank
#211
Total Output Tokens
11,445
Response Time (avg)
3.12s
Total Cost
N/A
Recommended model Qwen3.8 27B

It has the best score here (5.5), while responding about 35.7x faster than Laguna S 2.1 (high).

Detailed comparison

Metric Laguna S 2.1 Laguna S 2.1 high Release: 2026-07-21 Free Available Qwen3.8 27B Qwen3.8 27B none Release: 2026-08-14
Score 5.4 5.5
Rank #220 #211
Reliability 10.0 10.0
Consistency 8.1 10.0
Attempts 66/66 66/66
Tests Correct
Attempt pass rate 27.3% 40.9%
Flaky tests 5 0
Total Runs 66 66
Cost per result 3.153 N/A
Total Cost $0.114 N/A
Input Price $0.090 / 1M N/A
Output Price $0.180 / 1M N/A
Total Input Tokens 208,937 122,463
Output Tokens 175,588 11,445
Reasoning Tokens 409,276 0
Response Time (avg) 111.60s 3.12s
Response Time (max) 1190.11s 44.76s
Response Time (total) 2455.24s 68.69s
Parameters 118B total (8B active) 27.3B
Availability Weights available Weights available

Model generation showcase

Hamster playing table tennis

Prompt: Create a detailed SVG illustration of a hamster playing table tennis.

#220 Laguna S 2.1

high
Cost
$0.001
Time
6.8s
Tokens
1,389 tok

#211 Qwen3.8 27B

none
Cost
N/A
Time
23.9s
Tokens
1,922 tok

Top Models by Score

Score vs Total Cost

Response Time (avg)

Score vs Response Time (avg)

Total Output Tokens

Score vs Total Output Tokens

Category Breakdown

Coding Score Consistency Attempt pass rate Flaky tests Tests Correct Response Time (avg) Input Tokens Output Tokens Reasoning Tokens
Laguna S 2.1 5.3 7.2 44.4% 1 271.42s 6,496 59,355 151,009
Qwen3.8 27B 5.5 10.0 33.3% 0 1.19s 7,911 408 0

Quick Compare

Switch Comparison Pair