We are officially releasing Qwen 3.8-Max, the most capable model in the Qwen family to date. This also marks the first time we will open-source the weights of a Qwen-Max-class model. Built upon the architectural foundation of Qwen 3.5, Qwen 3.8-Max scales to 2.4 trillion parameters, delivering comprehensive improvements across coding, work, research, and long-horizon tasks.
💜 Qwen Studio | 🤗 Hugging Face | 🤖 ModelScope | 📑 Blog
Introduction
Qwen3.8
Qwen3.8 features the following enhancements:
- Core Capabilities: Comprehensive improvements across coding, professional work, research, and long-horizon agentic tasks.
- Agent Execution: Stronger autonomous planning and better handling of environment feedback, leading to more reliable end-to-end task completion.
- Downstream Compatibility: Broader support for popular harnesses and development tools, making it easier to integrate into your existing stack.
- Flexible Thinking Control: Reasoning depth can be tuned with
reasoning_effort, and reasoning context from historical messages is retained viapreserve_thinking.

Qwen3.6
Building upon the fundamental breakthroughs of Qwen3.5, Qwen3.6 prioritizes stability and real-world utility. It offers developers a more intuitive, responsive, and genuinely productive coding experience, shaped by direct community feedback. This update delivers substantial upgrades, particularly in:
- Agentic Coding: The model now handles front-end workflows and repository-level reasoning with greater fluency and precision.
- Thinking Preservation: A new feature retains thinking context across conversation history, streamlining iterative development and reducing overhead.
Qwen3.5
Qwen3.5 features the following enhancement:
Unified Vision-Language Foundation: Early fusion training on trillions of multimodal tokens achieves cross-generational parity with Qwen3 and outperforms Qwen3-VL models across reasoning, coding, agents, and visual understanding benchmarks.
Efficient Hybrid Architecture: Gated Delta Networks combined with sparse Mixture-of-Experts deliver high-throughput inference with minimal latency and cost overhead.
Scalable RL Generalization: Reinforcement learning scaled across million-agent environments with progressively complex task distributions for robust real-world adaptability.
Global Linguistic Coverage: Expanded support to 201 languages and dialects, enabling inclusive, worldwide deployment with nuanced cultural and regional understanding.
Next-Generation Training Infrastructure: Near-100% multimodal training efficiency compared to text-only training and asynchronous RL frameworks supporting massive-scale agent scaffolds and environment orchestration.
Models
The official model weights are released on:
- 🤗Hugging Face Hub: Most LLM frameworks and applications support downloading model files from Hugging Face Hub automatically by specifying the model ID, e.g.,
Qwen/Qwen3.8-27BandQwen/Qwen3.8-2.4T-A95B. You can also download model files manually usinghuggingface downloadorgit clone. Please follow the instructions on the model page. - 🤖ModelScope: For users unable to access Hugging Face Hub, we strongly recommend using ModelScope.
For supported frameworks, you can download from ModelScope by setting environment variables, such as
SGLANG_USE_MODELSCOPE=trueorVLLM_USE_MODELSCOPE=true. You can also download model files manually usingmodelscope downloadorgit clone. Please follow the instructions on the model page.
Benchmarks
Qwen3.8-Max
| Benchmark | Qwen 3.8-Max | Qwen 3.7-Max | GPT-5.6 Sol (max) | Fable 5 | Opus 4.8 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding Agent | |||||
| Terminal Bench 2.1 | 86.6 | 74.5 | 88.8 | 84.6 | 84.6 |
| SWE-bench Pro | 67.7 | 60.6 | 64.6 | 80.0 | 69.2 |
| DeepSWE 1.1 | 56.6 | 21.6 | 73.0 | 70.0 | 59.0 |
| NL2Repo-Bench | 55.9 | 47.2 | – | – | 69.4 |
| FrontierSWE | 73.5 | 40.7 | – | 88.8 | 70.0 |
| MLS-Bench-Lite | 41.0 | 31.7 | 46.2 | 49.9 | 42.8 |
| PaperBench | 93.0 | 64.8 | 90.5 | 88.8 | 80.3 |
| AndroidBench | 75.1 | 56.5 | 74.0 | 84.5 | 69.8 |
| QwenSWEBench | 80.7 | 63.4 | 73.5 | 86.3 | 84.0 |
| QwenQoderBench | 58.4 | 36.8 | 53.8 | 63.1 | 62.7 |
| QwenReactBench | 1724 | 1538 | 1564 | 1770 | 1694 |
| QwenSVGBench | 1713 | 1499 | 1758 | 1690 | 1648 |
| General Agent | |||||
| CoWorkBench | 74.8 | 64.6 | 71.5 | 75.9 | 72.3 |
| WorkSpaceBench | 67.7 | 61.4 | 65.6 | 68.7 | 66.8 |
| JobBench | 53.4 | 31.3 | 45.4 | 57.4 | 48.4 |
| SkillsBench | 70.2 | 61.2 | 73.5 | 70.9 | 65.1 |
| Agents’ Last Exam (Pass / Score) | 27.0 / 52.4 | 11.8 / 31.1 | 30.6 / 53.6 | – / – | 27.0 / 45.1 |
| Automation-Bench (Pass@1) | 27.3 | 14.2 | 29.7 | 29.1 | 27.2 |
| Toolathlon Verified (Pass@1) | 72.5 | 49.7 | 74.9 | 77.9 | 76.2 |
| WideSearch | 81.9 | 75.2 | – | 81.2 | 72.9 |
| HLE w/ tools | 56.2 | 53.5 | 58.0 | 64.5 | 57.9 |
| General Capabilities | |||||
| GPQA Diamond | 92.6 | 92.4 | 94.1 | 92.6 | 92.0 |
| HLE | 43.6 | 41.4 | 47.2 | 53.3 | 45.7 |
| IFBench | 82.8 | 79.1 | 72.7 | 63.5 | 62.2 |
| $OneMillion-Bench (expert score) | 52.5 | 44.4 | 53.8 | 55.9 | 41.8 |
| HealthBench | 60.2 | 54.5 | 55.3 | – | 52.4 |
| PLawBench | 73.2 | 58.9 | 72.3 | 70.2 | 69.6 |
| PRBench-Legal | 57.6 | 48.5 | 57.6 | 57.6 | 52.7 |
| PRBench-Finance | 58.3 | 46.8 | 55.5 | 55.8 | 51.9 |
| MRCR v2 256K (8-needle) | 92.9 | 86.7 | 93.8 | – | 83.2 |
| LongBench v2 | 66.3 | 65.3 | 67.1 | – | 69.1 |
Footnotes
- Fable5 results may involve fallbacks.
- Terminal Bench 2.1: Evaluated with Claude Code (avg@10), using a 5-hour timeout and max_tokens=131,072. For all other models, we report the best published score across harnesses: Claude Opus 4.8 and Claude Fable 5 with Terminus 2 from Artificial Analysis (https://artificialanalysis.ai/evaluations/terminalbench-v2-1); GPT-5.6 Sol with Codex (https://openai.com/index/previewing-gpt-5-6-sol/).
- SWE-bench Pro: Evaluated with the Claude Code harness, temp=1.0, top_p=0.95, and a 256K context window. Problematic tasks corrected and all baselines evaluated on the refined benchmark.
- DeepSWE 1.1: Evaluated with the Claude Code and mini-SWE-agent harnesses, temp=1.0, top_p=0.95, and a 256K context window. We report the highest score among both harnesses; notably, Qwen3.8-Max performs best on Claude Code.
- NL2Repo-Bench: Evaluated with the Claude Code harness. To prevent reward hacking, we disable Bash commands that attempt to access the specific repository, such as pip download, pip install, and git clone.
- FrontierSWE: Evaluated with the Claude Code harness. All other available MEAN@5 results are taken from the official FrontierSWE leaderboard (https://www.frontierswe.com) as of August 3, 2026. Dominance scores are recomputed from the raw scores using the official evaluation script. “–” indicates that no official MEAN@5 result was available as of that date.
- MLS-Bench-Lite: Evaluated with Claude Code using a 5-hour timeout and max_tokens=131,072. All other model scores are taken from the official leaderboard.
- PaperBench: Evaluated in the BasicAgent setting under Code-Dev mode, judged by Claude Opus 4.6, and averaged over 3 runs (max 12 hours per run).
- AndroidBench: Evaluated on the 95-task public subset, reporting avg@3 scores.
- QwenSWEBench: Inhouse coding benchmark to evaluate models’ software engineering capabilities. Evaluated with the Claude Code harness. Reporting avg@3 with an 8-hour timeout, max_tokens=32,768, temperature=1.0, and a 256K-token context window.
- QwenQoderBench: Inhouse coding benchmark to evaluate user experience on Qoder. Evaluated with the Claude Code harness. Reporting avg@5 with a 6-hour timeout, max_tokens=32,768, temperature=1.0, and a 256K-token context window.
- QwenReactBench: Inhouse React project building benchmark using Claude Code as the harness, bilingual (EN/CN), 7 categories; auto-render + multimodal judge; BT/Elo rating.
- QwenSVGBench: Inhouse SVG code generation benchmark; bilingual (EN/CN), auto-render + multimodal judge; BT/Elo rating.
- CoWorkBench: Inhouse cowork benchmark for evaluating long-horizon tasks across computer science, finance, law, medical, and other productivity domains.
- SkillsBench: Evaluated on the public SkillsBench v1.1 benchmark across 87 tasks, reporting the average score over three runs per task. Opus 4.8 and Fable 5 are evaluated on Claude Code; GPT-5.6 Sol is evaluated on Codex; the Qwen-series are evaluated on OpenCode. All results are from our own testing.
- Automation-Bench: Evaluated on the 600-task public subset.
- WideSearch: Evaluated with the Claude Code harness for external models and the Qwen-Agent harness for ours, reporting the average item-F1 over four runs.
- $OneMillion-Bench: Evaluated using gemini-3.1-pro-preview.
- PLawBench: Evaluated using gemini-3.1-pro-preview.
- Empty cells (–): Scores are not yet available or are not applicable.
| Benchmark | Qwen 3.8-Max | Qwen 3.7-Plus | GPT-5.6 Sol | Gemini 3.1-Pro | Fable 5 | Opus 4.8 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Multimodal Reasoning | ||||||
| MMMU-Pro | 82.3 | 79.0 | 83.0 | 80.5 | 81.2 | 75.6 |
| MathVision | 95.2 / 97.7 | 90.3 / – | 90.8 / 97.8 | 87.4 / 95.7 | 92.7 / 98.6 | 87.1 / 97.1 |
| BabyVision | 82.0 / 91.3 | 64.7 / 70.4 | 65.5 / 88.9 | 55.9 / 68.3 | 42.5 / 90.5 | 28.4 / 81.2 |
| HLE-VL (w/ Tools) | 52.2 | 25.6 | 51.2 | 43.9 | – | – |
| ZeroBench (Pass@5) | 24.0 / 49.0 | 19.0 / 19.0 | 22.0 / 35.0 | 17.0 / 23.0 | 20.0 / 46.0 | 17.0 / 34.0 |
| ZeroBench-Sub | 48.5 | 41.0 | 46.7 | 36.5 | 37.1 | 31.1 |
| LogicVista | 91.9 | 84.3 | 89.7 | 82.6 | 85.7 | 76.7 |
| HiPhO | 90.0 | 84.1 | 86.8 | 85.4 | 78.6 | 69.3 |
| PhyX | 83.5 | 80.0 | 79.1 | 79.4 | 71.7 | 54.2 |
| SLAKE | 90.8 | 83.2 | 85.1 | 82.9 | 86.6 | 75.9 |
| MedXpertQA-MM | 80.4 | 71.0 | 81.5 | 80.7 | 80.0 | 71.7 |
| PMC-VQA | 66.2 | 63.4 | 62.3 | 62.5 | 63.2 | 59.2 |
| Visual Agent & Coding | ||||||
| OSWorld-Verified | 86.1 | 73.3 | 83.2 | 76.2 | 85.0 | 83.4 |
| OSWorld 2.0 | 19.4 / 46.7 | 2.8 / 21.5 | – / 62.6 | 7.8 / 30.6 | – / 66.1 | 20.6 / 54.8 |
| ScreenSpot Pro | 84.5 | 79.0 | 81.3 | 68.1 | 87.3 | 82.3 |
| WebArena-Verified | 66.8 | 55.3 | 69.7 | 64.3 | 71.3 | 67.9 |
| AndroidWorld | 85.3 | 81.0 | 77.6 | 70.7 | 88.8 | 75.0 |
| MobileWorld | 77.8 | 51.2 | 76.9 | 58.1 | 85.5 | 67.5 |
| ClawEval-MM | 77.2 / 74.8 | 57.4 / 60.1 | 81.2 / 78.9 | 50.5 / 55.2 | 81.2 / 77.5 | 73.3 / 73.8 |
| Vision2Web | 69.0 | 42.1 | 62.1 | – | 70.5 | 62.4 |
| QwenBlenderBench | 69.9 | 41.5 | 68.6 | 23.0 | 69.5 | 62.4 |
| Parametric CAD Bench | 91.5 | 73.8 | 86.2 | 73.5 | 87.5 | 85.1 |
| RecreationBench | 51.7 | 30.2 | 47.6 | 16.2 | 56.1 | 48.0 |
| PresentBench | 79.6 | 65.7 | 82.9 | 55.4 | 79.8 | 80.9 |
| Document & Office Intelligence | ||||||
| CharXiv (RQ) | 88.4 / 93.5 | 85.8 / 85.9 | 85.1 / 89.1 | 84.4 / 89.9 | 87.9 / 93.5 | 78.5 / 89.9 |
| OmniDocBench 1.5 | 92.1 | 91.4 | 86.7 | 90.0 | 89.5 | 86.5 |
| OCR-Bench-V2 (EN/ZH) | 74.2 / 68.3 | 70.7 / 67.1 | 69.0 / 57.3 | 64.6 / 58.2 | 65.3 / 58.1 | 53.9 / 55.3 |
| CC-OCR-Bench-V2 | 79.6 | 72.7 | 68.0 | 68.9 | 72.4 | 60.3 |
| MTVQA-Test | 56.6 | 51.2 | 52.7 | 54.3 | 41.6 | 48.1 |
| MADQA | 91.8 | 87.1 | 87.8 | 81.1 | 86.0 | 86.8 |
| QwenVisualOffice | 44.6 | 32.4 | 29.5 | 39.6 | 32.4 | 34.5 |
| Real-World & Spatial Understanding | ||||||
| RealWorldQA | 88.0 | 86.9 | 83.7 | 83.5 | 85.9 | 76.6 |
| ERQA | 77.8 | 69.8 | 70.0 | 68.0 | 70.0 | 57.2 |
| LingoQA | 84.8 | 83.4 | 72.6 | 66.8 | 77.4 | 73.8 |
| SURDS | 77.8 | 77.2 | 63.0 | 64.0 | 79.4 | 62.2 |
| Visual Perception & Grounding | ||||||
| SimpleVQA | 75.0 | 70.3 | 66.6 | 73.1 | 73.4 | 67.3 |
| WorldVQA | 53.2 | 43.9 | 45.1 | 54.0 | 53.5 | 33.9 |
| MMStar | 85.9 | 83.2 | 82.5 | 84.0 | 80.5 | 76.7 |
| PerceptionBench | 63.5 | 51.1 | 59.7 | 56.2 | 57.2 | 47.2 |
| CountQA | 82.4 | 77.0 | 68.6 | 72.8 | 63.1 | 41.3 |
| RefAdv-S | 80.2 | 73.0 | 69.2 | 71.9 | 68.6 | 61.7 |
| Dense200 | 87.0 | 60.7 | 55.3 | 69.7 | 31.1 | 20.8 |
| COCO | 78.7 | 74.2 | 61.2 | 72.4 | 56.4 | 50.7 |
| VisFactor | 60.8 | 42.8 | 62.8 | 39.8 | 54.5 | 30.1 |
| VLMsAreBiased | 88.3 | 36.6 | 59.8 | 74.1 | 61.2 | 43.8 |
| Video Intelligence & Agents | ||||||
| VideoMME (w/ Sub.) | 90.4 | 88.0 | 89.5 | 86.7 | – | 85.4 |
| VideoMME v2 (w/ Sub.) | 68.3 | 59.7 | 71.1 | 66.9 | 52.2 | 49.0 |
| VideoMMMU | 88.7 | 85.4 | 85.0 | 85.3 | 81.2 | 75.3 |
| MMVU | 82.4 | 76.6 | 81.2 | 77.9 | 72.0 | 67.4 |
| MLVU (M-Avg) | 90.8 | 87.4 | 87.6 | 84.7 | – | 53.4 |
| TVBench | 81.9 | 78.2 | 83.2 | 73.0 | – | 61.5 |
| LVBench | 81.8 | 76.2 | 78.8 | 75.1 | – | 67.3 |
| LVBench (w/ Mem.) | 85.6 | 74.5 / – | 84.2 | – | 90.1 | 84.3 |
| EgoLife (w/ Mem.) | 80.3 | 68.8 | 70.8 | – | 82.3 | 78.3 |
| VideoDR (w/ Search) | 73.2 | 41.0 | 71.3 | – | 77.1 | 65.6 |
Footnotes
- MathVision, BabyVision, CharXiv (RQ), and ZeroBench: Scores are reported as “without CI / with CI.” A small number of incorrect ground-truth annotations in MathVision and CharXiv (RQ) were corrected following manual verification.
- MathVision: Our model is evaluated using a fixed prompt, e.g., “Please reason step by step, and put your final answer within
\boxed{}.” For other models, we report the higher score obtained from runs with and without the\boxed{}formatting requirement. - MMMU-Pro: Results for Gemini3.1-Pro and GPT5.6-Sol are taken from official model reports or system cards. All other models are evaluated in-house.
- ClawEval-MM: Scores are reported as “Pass@3 / average score.” Pass@3 measures the percentage passed in at least one of the three trials, and average score is the mean score across the three trials.
- Vision2Web: Scores are averaged across the frontend, webpage, and website categories, using the Claude Code harness and gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 as the judge.
- HLE-VL (w/ Tools): Scores are evaluated with tool use, including both Code Interpreter (CI) and Search. Scores for the tool-enabled versions of Gemini3.1-Pro and GPT5.6-Sol are measured end-to-end through their official native tool-calling APIs.
- OSWorld 2.0: Scores are reported as “binary / partial.” The binary score is the percentage of tasks receiving the full task reward, while the partial score aggregates the partial rewards obtained across all tasks.
- ScreenSpot Pro: Scores for Opus4.8 and Fable5 are taken from official system cards. The Fable5 results refer to the corresponding Mythos Preview scores. All other models are evaluated in-house.
- WebArena-Verified: Scores are reported using the official WebArena grader within the OSWorld scaffold.
- RecreationBench: An internal long-horizon application-recreation benchmark for evaluating hybrid-agent capabilities across five platforms: Ubuntu, macOS, Windows, Android, and the web.
- PerceptionBench: Scores for comparison models are taken from the benchmark’s official release report, while our model is evaluated in-house.
- VideoMME (w/ Sub.) and VideoMME v2 (w/ Sub.): Scores are evaluated with subtitles enabled.
- QwenBlenderBench and QwenVisualOffice: Both are internal benchmarks.
- LVBench and EgoLife (w/ Mem.): Scores are evaluated using a memory system built with Qwen-MM-Plugins, enabling fine-grained, long-horizon video memory.
- VideoDR (w/ Search): Scores are evaluated with access to a search tool.
- Empty cells (–): Scores are not yet available or are not applicable.
Qwen3.8-27B
| Benchmark | Qwen3.8-27B | Qwen3.6-27B | Qwen3.7-Plus | Opus 4.6 | Muse Glimmer-30B |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | |||||
| Agentic terminal coding Terminal Bench 2.1 (Terminus) | 73.0 | 63.4 | 64.0 | 78.2 | 51.7 |
| Agentic coding SWE-bench Pro | 61.7 | 53.5 | 57.6 | 53.4 | 51.2 |
| Repo-level code generation NL2Repo-Bench | 42.3 | 36.2 | 41.1 | 47.6 | – |
| Agentic coding DeepSWE 1.1 | 42.2 | 13.3 | 14.2 | – | – |
| Software engineering QwenSWEBench | 79.0 | 49.3 | 59.2 | 63.8 | – |
| Agent | |||||
| Long-horizon office work CoWorkBench | 70.7 | 61.0 | 65.1 | 68.2 | – |
| Professional job tasks JobBench | 33.4 | 21.8 | 27.6 | – | – |
| Frontier agentic tasks Agents’ Last Exam | Pass@1: 20.4 Score: 42.9 | Pass@1: 10.6 Score: 27.3 | Pass@1: 13.2 Score: 33.6 | – | – |
| General | |||||
| Instruction following IFBench | 79.5 | 69.1 | 79.1 | 62.5 | 77.0 |
| Scientific reasoning GPQA Diamond | 89.2 | 87.8 | 90.3 | 91.3 | 83.5 |
| Multidisciplinary reasoning HLE | 30.8 | 24.0 | 34.7 | 40.0 | 22.0 |
| Competitive coding LiveCodeBench v6 | 90.3 | 83.9 | 89.6 | 88.8 | – |
Footnotes
- SWE-bench Pro: Except for Opus4.6 Max, which uses the officially reported score, all models are evaluated with the Claude Code harness at temp=1.0, top_p=0.95, and a 256K context window. Problematic tasks were corrected, and all baseline models were re-evaluated on the refined benchmark.
- NL2Repo-Bench: Evaluated with the Claude Code harness. To prevent reward hacking, we disable Bash commands that attempt to access the specific repository, such as pip download, pip install, and git clone.
- DeepSWE 1.1: Evaluated with the Claude Code harness at temp=1.0, top_p=0.95, and a 256K context window.
- QwenSWEBench: In-house coding benchmark for evaluating models’ software engineering capabilities. Evaluated with the Claude Code harness. Reporting avg@3 with an 8-hour timeout, max_tokens=32,768, temperature=1.0, and a 256K context window.
- CoWorkBench: In-house cowork benchmark for evaluating long-horizon tasks across computer science, finance, law, medical, and other productivity domains.
- HLE: Judged by GPT-4o.
- The best result in each row is shown in bold.
- Empty cells (–) indicate that results are not yet available or not applicable.
| Benchmark | Qwen3.8-27B | Qwen3.6-27B | Qwen3.7-Plus | Opus 4.6 | Muse Glimmer-30B |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic Multimodal Intelligence | |||||
| Computer use OSWorld-Verified | 84.3 | 63.9 | 73.3 | 72.7 | 65.9 |
| Browser use WebArena-Verified | 64.8 | 48.8 | 55.3 | – | – |
| Mobile use AndroidWorld | 81.9 | 70.3 | 81.0 | 62.0 | – |
| Application recreation RecreationBench | 47.1 | 29.8 | 30.2 | – | – |
| Multimodal tool use ClawEval-MM | Pass@3: 57.4 Average: 56.9 | Pass@3: 42.6 Average: 50.4 | Pass@3: 57.4 Average: 60.1 | Pass@3: 52.5 Average: 54.7 | – |
| Multimodal software engineering SWE-MM | 38.6 | 25.7 | 30.0 | 27.1 | – |
| Visual web development Vision2Web | 62.9 | 45.0 | 42.1 | – | – |
| General Multimodal Intelligence | |||||
| Visual math problem solving MathVision | Without CI: 90.0 With CI: 94.6 | Without CI: 85.1 | Without CI: 90.3 | Without CI: 65.5 | – |
| General visual reasoning BabyVision | Without CI: 65.7 With CI: 85.6 | Without CI: 28.9 | Without CI: 64.7 With CI: 70.4 | Without CI: 12.6 | – |
| Scientific chart analysis CharXiv (RQ) | Without CI: 83.7 With CI: 90.2 | Without CI: 78.4 | Without CI: 85.8 With CI: 85.9 | Without CI: 66.0 | 78.8 |
| Document intelligence OmniDocBench 1.5 | 91.1 | 89.4 | 91.4 | 86.6 | 75.8 |
| Real-world perception RealWorldQA | 85.9 | 84.1 | 86.9 | 73.9 | – |
| Embodied intelligence ERQA | 65.5 | 62.5 | 69.8 | 40.8 | – |
Footnotes
- MathVision, BabyVision, and CharXiv (RQ): Where both settings are available, cells report “Without CI” and “With CI” separately; otherwise, only the available setting is shown. A small number of incorrect ground-truth annotations in MathVision and CharXiv (RQ) were corrected following manual verification, and all reported scores on those benchmarks were computed using the corrected annotations.
- MathVision: Qwen3.8-27B is evaluated using the fixed prompt: “Please reason step by step, and put your final answer within
\boxed{}.” For the remaining models, we report the higher score from two prompt variants—one with and one without the\boxed{}formatting requirement. - WebArena-Verified: Scores are computed with the official WebArena-Verified grader under the OSWorld scaffold.
- RecreationBench: An in-house, long-horizon application-recreation benchmark designed to evaluate hybrid-agent capabilities across five platforms: desktop (Ubuntu, macOS, and Windows), mobile (Android), and the web.
- ClawEval-MM: Scores are reported as “Pass@3 / average score.” Pass@3 is the percentage of tasks passed in at least one of three trials; the average score is the mean benchmark score across the three trials.
- Vision2Web: Scores are averaged across the frontend, webpage, and website categories. Evaluations use the Claude Code harness and are judged by
gpt-5.4-2026-03-05. - SWE-MM: Scores are evaluated on the Claude Code harness using the public dev split of SWE-bench Multimodal, with the modifications described in Appendix 8.3 of the Claude Opus 4.7 system card.
- Empty cells (–) indicate that results are not yet available or not applicable.
Quickstart
For streamlined integration, we recommend using Qwen3.8 via APIs.
Serving Qwen3.8
❗ Important
Inference efficiency and throughput vary significantly across frameworks. We recommend using the latest framework versions to ensure optimal performance and compatibility. For production workloads or high-throughput scenarios, dedicated serving engines such as SGLang, vLLM, or TokenSpeed are recommended.
Qwen3.8 can be deployed with popular inference frameworks, e.g.:
API Usage
❗ Important
Qwen3.8-2.4T-A95B is a text-only model that requires thinking mode for all interactions. Multimodal inputs are not supported, and thinking cannot be disabled. Every response will automatically begin with reasoning enclosed in
<think>\n...</think>\n\nbefore the final output.
💡 Tip
We recommend using the following set of sampling parameters for generation:
temperature=1.0, top_p=0.95, top_k=20, min_p=0.0, presence_penalty=0.0, repetition_penalty=1.0Please note that the support for sampling parameters varies according to inference frameworks.
Qwen3.8 comes with official support for reasoning_effort, which can be used to adjust reasoning depth and control cost:
xhigh(default): for complex tasks demanding thorough analysismedium: balancing accuracy and speedlow: efficient reasoning optimizing for speed and cost
In addition, preserve_thinking is enabled by default for all workloads for the best out-of-the-box experience.
Chat Completions API
The Chat Completions API can be used with most inference frameworks, as well as Qwen Cloud. Before starting, make sure the OpenAI Python SDK is installed and the API key and the API base URL are configured, e.g.:
pip install -U openai
# Set the following accordingly
export OPENAI_BASE_URL='your-base-url'
export OPENAI_API_KEY='your-api-key'
Text-Only Input
from openai import OpenAI
# Configured by environment variables
client = OpenAI()
messages = [{"role": "user", "content": "Write a Python function to merge two sorted linked lists."}]
completion = client.chat.completions.create(
model="Qwen/Qwen3.8-2.4T-A95B",
messages=messages,
extra_body={
"chat_template_kwargs": {
"enable_thinking": True, # on by default; should not be turned off
"preserve_thinking": True, # on by default
},
},
reasoning_effort="xhigh", # xhigh by default; supported levels are xhigh, medium, and low
stream=True,
stream_options={"include_usage": True},
)
reasoning_content = ""
answer_content = ""
is_answering = False
print("\n" + "=" * 20 + "Reasoning" + "=" * 20 + "\n")
for chunk in completion:
if not chunk.choices:
print("\nUsage:")
print(chunk.usage)
continue
delta = chunk.choices[0].delta
if hasattr(delta, "reasoning_content") and delta.reasoning_content is not None:
if not is_answering:
print(delta.reasoning_content, end="", flush=True)
reasoning_content += delta.reasoning_content
if hasattr(delta, "content") and delta.content:
if not is_answering:
print("\n" + "=" * 20 + "Answer" + "=" * 20 + "\n")
is_answering = True
print(delta.content, end="", flush=True)
answer_content += delta.content
ℹ️ Note
If you are using APIs from Qwen Cloud, in addition to changing
model, please passextra_body={"enable_thinking": True, "preserve_thinking": True}instead ofextra_body={"chat_template_kwargs": {"enable_thinking": True, "preserve_thinking": True}}.
Best Practices
To achieve optimal performance, we recommend the following settings:
Sampling Parameters:
- We suggest using the following set of sampling parameters:
temperature=1.0,top_p=0.95,top_k=20,min_p=0.0,presence_penalty=0.0,repetition_penalty=1.0
- For supported frameworks, you can adjust the
presence_penaltyparameter between 0 and 2 to reduce endless repetition. However, using a higher value may occasionally result in language mixing and a slight decrease in model performance.
- We suggest using the following set of sampling parameters:
Adequate Output Length: To optimize performance on agentic tasks, we recommend allocating sufficient output length to allow the model to generate detailed and comprehensive responses. For frameworks that support separate token limits for internal reasoning and final outputs, we suggest the following configuration within the 1M context length:
- Reasoning Content: Set the maximum output length to 262,144 tokens.
- Final Response: Set the maximum output length to 131,072 tokens.
These settings provide the necessary capacity for complex reasoning while ensuring ample space for high-quality final deliverables.
Citation
If you find our work helpful, feel free to give us a cite.
@misc{qwen38,
title = {{Qwen3.8-Max}: A New Bar for Coding and Cowork},
url = {https://qwen.ai/blog?id=qwen3.8},
author = {{Qwen Team}},
month = {August},
year = {2026}
}