Qwen 3.8 Flash Next
Apache 2.0 Open SourceDeveloped by Alibaba Cloud · Released 2025-01-01
What are the token costs and operational benchmarks for Qwen 3.8 Flash Next?
Architectural Overview
Frontier foundation model developed by Alibaba Cloud featuring High-Throughput Asian/Global MoE architecture.
Optimal Production Use Cases
Extreme token throughput multilingual coding, global document processing, and low-cost API scaling.
Interactive Monthly Token Economics & ROI Forecaster
Model your expected production workload across prompt (input) and completion (output) tokens.
Estimated Monthly Spend
$0.12/1M in · $0.48/1M out
$0.18/1M in · $0.72/1M out
Head-to-Head Comparisons Involving Qwen 3.8 Flash Next
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next vs Claude 3.5 Haiku
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 85.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $0.80 per 1M tokens) and $0.48 vs. $4.00 for output tokens (6.7x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Qwen 3.8 Flash Next delivers faster response latency with 120ms TTFT (20ms faster than Claude 3.5 Haiku). Qwen 3.8 Flash Next leads coding benchmarks at 56.8% SWE-bench vs. 40.6% for Claude 3.5 Haiku.
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next vs Claude 3.5 Sonnet
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 96.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $3.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.48 vs. $15.00 for output tokens (25.0x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Qwen 3.8 Flash Next delivers faster response latency with 120ms TTFT (200ms faster than Claude 3.5 Sonnet). Claude 3.5 Sonnet leads coding benchmarks at 63.7% SWE-bench vs. 56.8% for Qwen 3.8 Flash Next.
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next vs Claude 3.7 Sonnet
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 96.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $3.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.48 vs. $15.00 for output tokens (25.0x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Qwen 3.8 Flash Next delivers faster response latency with 120ms TTFT (530ms faster than Claude 3.7 Sonnet). Claude 3.7 Sonnet leads coding benchmarks at 70.3% SWE-bench vs. 56.8% for Qwen 3.8 Flash Next.
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next vs Claude Opus 5
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 97.6% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $5.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.48 vs. $25.00 for output tokens (41.7x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Qwen 3.8 Flash Next delivers faster response latency with 120ms TTFT (220ms faster than Claude Opus 5). Claude Opus 5 leads coding benchmarks at 82.4% SWE-bench vs. 56.8% for Qwen 3.8 Flash Next.
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next vs Codestral 25.01
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 60.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $0.30 per 1M tokens) and $0.48 vs. $0.90 for output tokens (2.5x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Qwen 3.8 Flash Next delivers faster response latency with 120ms TTFT (30ms faster than Codestral 25.01). Qwen 3.8 Flash Next leads coding benchmarks at 56.8% SWE-bench vs. 44.2% for Codestral 25.01.
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next vs Composer 2.5
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 93.3% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $1.80 per 1M tokens) and $0.48 vs. $7.20 for output tokens (15.0x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Qwen 3.8 Flash Next delivers faster response latency with 120ms TTFT (60ms faster than Composer 2.5). Composer 2.5 leads coding benchmarks at 74.6% SWE-bench vs. 56.8% for Qwen 3.8 Flash Next.
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next vs DeepSeek-R1
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 78.2% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $0.55 per 1M tokens) and $0.48 vs. $2.19 for output tokens (4.6x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Qwen 3.8 Flash Next delivers faster response latency with 120ms TTFT (1680ms faster than DeepSeek-R1). Qwen 3.8 Flash Next leads coding benchmarks at 56.8% SWE-bench vs. 49.2% for DeepSeek-R1.
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next vs DeepSeek-V3
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 14.3% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $0.14 per 1M tokens) and $0.48 vs. $0.28 for output tokens (1.2x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Qwen 3.8 Flash Next delivers faster response latency with 120ms TTFT (220ms faster than DeepSeek-V3). Qwen 3.8 Flash Next leads coding benchmarks at 56.8% SWE-bench vs. 42.0% for DeepSeek-V3.
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next vs DeepSeek-V4 Flash
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 14.3% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $0.14 per 1M tokens) and $0.48 vs. $0.56 for output tokens (1.2x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Qwen 3.8 Flash Next delivers faster response latency with 120ms TTFT (30ms faster than DeepSeek-V4 Flash). DeepSeek-V4 Flash leads coding benchmarks at 62.4% SWE-bench vs. 56.8% for Qwen 3.8 Flash Next.
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next vs Fable 5
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 94.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.48 vs. $8.00 for output tokens (16.7x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Qwen 3.8 Flash Next delivers faster response latency with 120ms TTFT (120ms faster than Fable 5). Fable 5 leads coding benchmarks at 58.0% SWE-bench vs. 56.8% for Qwen 3.8 Flash Next.
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next vs Gemini 2.0 Flash
Gemini 2.0 Flash is 16.7% cheaper for input tokens ($0.10 vs. $0.12 per 1M tokens) and $0.40 vs. $0.48 for output tokens (1.2x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Qwen 3.8 Flash Next delivers faster response latency with 120ms TTFT (260ms faster than Gemini 2.0 Flash). Qwen 3.8 Flash Next leads coding benchmarks at 56.8% SWE-bench vs. 48.0% for Gemini 2.0 Flash.
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next vs Gemini 3.7 Flash
Gemini 3.7 Flash is 33.3% cheaper for input tokens ($0.08 vs. $0.12 per 1M tokens) and $0.32 vs. $0.48 for output tokens (1.5x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 3.7 Flash delivers faster response latency with 75ms TTFT (45ms faster than Qwen 3.8 Flash Next). Gemini 3.7 Flash leads coding benchmarks at 68.2% SWE-bench vs. 56.8% for Qwen 3.8 Flash Next.
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next vs GLM 5.3 Flash
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 20.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $0.15 per 1M tokens) and $0.48 vs. $0.50 for output tokens (1.2x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Qwen 3.8 Flash Next delivers faster response latency with 120ms TTFT (10ms faster than GLM 5.3 Flash). Qwen 3.8 Flash Next leads coding benchmarks at 56.8% SWE-bench vs. 54.2% for GLM 5.3 Flash.
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next vs OpenAI GPT-4o
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 95.2% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $2.50 per 1M tokens) and $0.48 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (20.8x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Qwen 3.8 Flash Next delivers faster response latency with 120ms TTFT (160ms faster than OpenAI GPT-4o). Qwen 3.8 Flash Next leads coding benchmarks at 56.8% SWE-bench vs. 38.8% for OpenAI GPT-4o.
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next vs GPT-5.6 Luna
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 33.3% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $0.18 per 1M tokens) and $0.48 vs. $0.72 for output tokens (1.5x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, GPT-5.6 Luna delivers faster response latency with 90ms TTFT (30ms faster than Qwen 3.8 Flash Next). Qwen 3.8 Flash Next leads coding benchmarks at 56.8% SWE-bench vs. 48.5% for GPT-5.6 Luna.
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next vs GPT-5.6 Sol
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 98.5% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $8.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.48 vs. $32.00 for output tokens (66.7x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Qwen 3.8 Flash Next delivers faster response latency with 120ms TTFT (300ms faster than GPT-5.6 Sol). GPT-5.6 Sol leads coding benchmarks at 79.5% SWE-bench vs. 56.8% for Qwen 3.8 Flash Next.
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next vs GPT-5.6 Terra
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 92.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $1.50 per 1M tokens) and $0.48 vs. $6.00 for output tokens (12.5x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Qwen 3.8 Flash Next delivers faster response latency with 120ms TTFT (90ms faster than GPT-5.6 Terra). GPT-5.6 Terra leads coding benchmarks at 65.4% SWE-bench vs. 56.8% for Qwen 3.8 Flash Next.
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next vs Grok 3
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 96.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $3.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.48 vs. $15.00 for output tokens (25.0x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Qwen 3.8 Flash Next delivers faster response latency with 120ms TTFT (730ms faster than Grok 3). Grok 3 leads coding benchmarks at 58.5% SWE-bench vs. 56.8% for Qwen 3.8 Flash Next.
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next vs xAI Grok 4.6
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 94.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.48 vs. $6.00 for output tokens (16.7x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Qwen 3.8 Flash Next delivers faster response latency with 120ms TTFT (160ms faster than xAI Grok 4.6). xAI Grok 4.6 leads coding benchmarks at 76.8% SWE-bench vs. 56.8% for Qwen 3.8 Flash Next.
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next vs Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 33.3% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $0.18 per 1M tokens) and $0.48 vs. $0.40 for output tokens (1.5x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Qwen 3.8 Flash Next delivers faster response latency with 120ms TTFT (300ms faster than Llama 3.3 70B Instruct). Qwen 3.8 Flash Next leads coding benchmarks at 56.8% SWE-bench vs. 38.8% for Llama 3.3 70B Instruct.
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next vs Mistral Large 2
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 94.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.48 vs. $6.00 for output tokens (16.7x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Qwen 3.8 Flash Next delivers faster response latency with 120ms TTFT (430ms faster than Mistral Large 2). Qwen 3.8 Flash Next leads coding benchmarks at 56.8% SWE-bench vs. 39.0% for Mistral Large 2.
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next vs OpenAI o1
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 99.2% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.48 vs. $60.00 for output tokens (125.0x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Qwen 3.8 Flash Next delivers faster response latency with 120ms TTFT (730ms faster than OpenAI o1). Qwen 3.8 Flash Next leads coding benchmarks at 56.8% SWE-bench vs. 48.9% for OpenAI o1.
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next vs o3-mini
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 89.1% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $1.10 per 1M tokens) and $0.48 vs. $4.40 for output tokens (9.2x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Qwen 3.8 Flash Next delivers faster response latency with 120ms TTFT (1080ms faster than o3-mini). Qwen 3.8 Flash Next leads coding benchmarks at 56.8% SWE-bench vs. 49.3% for o3-mini.
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next vs Microsoft Phi-4 (14B)
Both models share identical input pricing at $0.12 per 1M tokens. In terms of operational performance, Microsoft Phi-4 (14B) delivers faster response latency with 110ms TTFT (10ms faster than Qwen 3.8 Flash Next). Qwen 3.8 Flash Next leads coding benchmarks at 56.8% SWE-bench vs. 42.1% for Microsoft Phi-4 (14B).
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next vs Qwen 2.5 72B Instruct
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 65.7% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $0.35 per 1M tokens) and $0.48 vs. $0.40 for output tokens (2.9x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Qwen 3.8 Flash Next delivers faster response latency with 120ms TTFT (300ms faster than Qwen 2.5 72B Instruct). Qwen 3.8 Flash Next leads coding benchmarks at 56.8% SWE-bench vs. 44.0% for Qwen 2.5 72B Instruct.
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next vs Qwen 2.5 Max
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 57.1% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $0.28 per 1M tokens) and $0.48 vs. $0.84 for output tokens (2.3x cost difference). In terms of operational performance, Qwen 3.8 Flash Next delivers faster response latency with 120ms TTFT (360ms faster than Qwen 2.5 Max). Qwen 3.8 Flash Next leads coding benchmarks at 56.8% SWE-bench vs. 44.2% for Qwen 2.5 Max.
Frequently Asked Questions & Query Fan-Out
How much does Qwen 3.8 Flash Next cost per 1M tokens?
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next costs $0.12 per million prompt (input) tokens and $0.48 per million completion (output) tokens.
What is the context window for Qwen 3.8 Flash Next?
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next supports a maximum context window of 262,144 tokens, with a maximum single-generation output of 32,768 tokens.
What are the primary use cases for Qwen 3.8 Flash Next?
Extreme token throughput multilingual coding, global document processing, and low-cost API scaling.