- Score
- 8.0 (+0.75 points)
- Total Cost (Current Price)
- $0.045 · 38.3% cheaper
- Response Time (avg)
- 23.66s · 41.0% faster
Summary
Qwen3.8 27B scores 7.2 on AI BENCHY and ranks #151. It has 9.7 reliability, a 66.7% pass rate, ~$0.073 total cost, and 40.09s average response time.
What makes Qwen3.8 27B unique: It stands out most in Coding, where it ranks #1, while Tool Calling is its weakest area at #17. Its total benchmark cost is unusually low for its score range.
Recommended alternatives
We recommend choosing this model instead:
Model facts
Researched on 2026-08-14
- Parameters
- 27.3B
- Architecture
- Other
- Availability
- Weights available
- License
- Apache-2.0
Exact local Q4_K_M GGUF reports 27.3B parameters and a hybrid attention/SSM architecture through Ollama model details. Tested locally on an NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090.
7.2
Consistency
9.4
9.7
~$0.073
Total Output Tokens
170,696
Total Input Tokens
277,164
Estimated benchmark electricity cost
~$0.073
Flaky tests
2
Flaky tests had mixed outcomes across runs (at least one pass and one fail).
Hamster playing table tennis
Prompt: Create a detailed SVG illustration of a hamster playing table tennis.
#151 Qwen3.8 27B
medium- Cost
- ~$0.002
- Time
- 43.4s
- Tokens
- 2,956 tok
Charts
Choose the first model, then click a second model to open a side-by-side page.
Top Models by Score
Score vs Total Cost
Response Time (avg)
Score vs Response Time (avg)
Total Output Tokens
Score vs Total Output Tokens
Quick Compare
Category Breakdown
| Category | Score | Consistency | Tests Correct |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 4.7 | 1.6 | |
| Anti-AI Tricks | 10.0 | 10.0 | |
| Coding | 10.0 | 10.0 | |
| Combined | 8.7 | 6.9 | |
| Data parsing and extraction | 6.5 | 10.0 | |
| Domain specific | 5.3 | 10.0 | |
| General Intelligence | 5.0 | 10.0 | |
| Instructions following | 10.0 | 10.0 | |
| Puzzle Solving | 8.3 | 10.0 | |
| Tool Calling | 3.0 | 10.0 | |
| Trivia | 3.0 | 10.0 |