Qwen3.8 Flash vs Extract
Updated October 21, 2026. 0 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.
- Coding
- No data
- Overall
- No data
- Output $/M
- $0.47
- Coding
- No data
- Overall
- No data
- Output $/M
- No data
Decision reading
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Compare them on price, context and the boards below.
- Shared results
- 0
- Qwen3.8 Flash only
- 7
- Extract only
- 0
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 of 9
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results only one model has describe coverage, not superiority.
Which one for your work
Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
No call
Neither has a coding score yet.
One side not measured
Long documents
Listed context window
No call
Both take 1M tokens.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Extract
Qwen3.8 Flash $0.0004, Extract $0.0000 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Qwen3.8 Flash not benchmarked, Extract not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- No category has a result for both models.
- Widest single gap
- No benchmark has a result for both models.
- Output price
- Qwen3.8 Flash $0.47 against Extract Free per million output tokens.
- Context window
- Both take 1M tokens.
Benchmark by benchmark
First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index1 board, none shared
| Benchmark | Qwen3.8 Flash | Extract | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LiveBench coding | 87.4% | Not measured | Only Qwen3.8 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 37 boards here | |||
IntelligenceNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Qwen3.8 Flash | Extract | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 2 boards here | |||
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index3 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Qwen3.8 Flash | Extract | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LiveBench research | 74.6% | Not measured | Only Qwen3.8 Flash measured |
| LiveBench browser | 48.0% | Not measured | Only Qwen3.8 Flash measured |
| LiveBench long agentic | 37.1% | Not measured | Only Qwen3.8 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 36 boards here | |||
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
| Benchmark | Qwen3.8 Flash | Extract | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LiveBench reasoning | 87.4% | Not measured | Only Qwen3.8 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 20 boards here | |||
MathNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Qwen3.8 Flash | Extract | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 13 boards here | |||
KnowledgeNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Qwen3.8 Flash | Extract | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 17 boards here | |||
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
| Benchmark | Qwen3.8 Flash | Extract | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LiveBench design | 72.8% | Not measured | Only Qwen3.8 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here | |||
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
| Benchmark | Qwen3.8 Flash | Extract | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LiveBench data analysis | 74.2% | Not measured | Only Qwen3.8 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 45 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Qwen3.8 Flash | Extract | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 5 boards here | |||
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.
Chat turn
1K input + 500 output tokens
Extract costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Extract costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Extract costs less
Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.
Specification differences
The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.
| Specification | Qwen3.8 Flash | ScaleDown Extract |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Qwen | Scaledown |
| Weights | Open weights | No public weights listed |
| Released | August 26, 2026 | October 13, 2026 |
| Context window | 1M | 1M |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.15 | $0.04 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.47 | Free |
| Coding index | Not benchmarked | Not benchmarked |
| Independent measurements behind it | 1 | 0 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is Qwen3.8 Flash better than Extract for coding?
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Compare them on price, context and the boards below.
Which is cheaper, Qwen3.8 Flash or Extract?
Qwen3.8 Flash costs $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.47 per million output tokens; Extract costs $0.04 and Free. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, Qwen3.8 Flash or Extract?
Neither: both take 1M tokens.
How many benchmarks is the Qwen3.8 Flash vs Extract comparison based on?
0 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Qwen3.8 Flash's coding index rests on 1 independent benchmark and Extract's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.