Which model is better: Llama 4 Maverick or Qwen 3.8 27B?
Llama 4 Maverick and Qwen 3.8 27B share identical input pricing at $0.20 per 1M tokens ($0.60 vs. $0.60 output). In terms of operational performance, Qwen 3.8 27B delivers lower response latency at 120ms TTFT (15ms faster than Llama 4 Maverick) with 140 vs. 175 tok/s throughput. Llama 4 Maverick leads coding evaluations at 62.4% SWE-bench Verified vs. 58.4% for Qwen 3.8 27B and 73.8% vs. 68.0% on GPQA Diamond.
Verified daily via automated API latency tests and official documentation.
Zero-Shot RAG Verified
Verified Performance & Unit Economics Delta (12 Dimensions)
Daily synchronized metrics across token pricing, prompt cache economics, latency, throughput, and 5 capability benchmarks.
Metric / Dimension
Llama 4 Maverick
Qwen 3.8 27B
Net Delta / Advantage
Input Cost / 1M Tokens
$0.20
$0.20
Identical Pricing
Output Cost / 1M Tokens
$0.60
$0.60
Identical Output Pricing
Prompt Cache Read / 1M
$0.050
$0.050
Identical Cache Read Pricing
Prompt Cache Write / 1M
$0.20
$0.20
Identical Cache Write Pricing
Context Window (Max Output)
1,049k (33k out)
131k (16k out)
Llama 4 Maverick (8.0x larger context)
Avg TTFT Response Latency
135ms
120ms
Qwen 3.8 27B (15ms faster)
Generation Speed (Throughput)
175 tok/s
140 tok/s
Llama 4 Maverick (+35 tok/s faster)
SWE-bench Verified (Coding)
62.4%
58.4%
Llama 4 Maverick (+4.0% lead)
GPQA Diamond (PhD STEM)
73.8%
68%
Llama 4 Maverick (+5.8% lead)
MMLU-Pro (Multi-Discipline)
84.5%
81.2%
Llama 4 Maverick (+3.3% lead)
MATH-500 (Quantitative Logic)
91%
86.4%
Llama 4 Maverick (+4.6% lead)
Inference Value Score (IVR)
77 / 100
74.9 / 100
Llama 4 Maverick (+2.1 pts)
Interactive Monthly Token Economics & ROI Forecaster
Model production workloads across prompt, completion, and cached context tokens, or switch models on the fly.
Choose Qwen 3.8 27B (Alibaba Cloud) for high-performance 27B open weights optimized for local deployment, code generation, and low-latency production pipelines — offering a 131k context window, 120ms TTFT, and $0.20/1M input pricing ($0.050/1M cached reads).
Which is cheaper: Llama 4 Maverick or Qwen 3.8 27B?
Both Llama 4 Maverick and Qwen 3.8 27B share identical input pricing at $0.20/1M tokens.
Which model has lower TTFT latency and higher tok/s throughput: Llama 4 Maverick or Qwen 3.8 27B?
Qwen 3.8 27B delivers faster first-token latency at 120ms TTFT (140 tok/s throughput) compared to 135ms TTFT (175 tok/s) for Llama 4 Maverick.
How do Llama 4 Maverick and Qwen 3.8 27B compare on SWE-bench coding and GPQA Diamond reasoning?
On SWE-bench Verified software engineering, Llama 4 Maverick scores 62.4% versus 58.4% for Qwen 3.8 27B. On GPQA Diamond graduate-level STEM reasoning, Llama 4 Maverick scores 73.8% versus 68% for Qwen 3.8 27B (and 91% vs 86.4% on MATH-500).
When should you choose Llama 4 Maverick?
Choose Llama 4 Maverick (Meta) for high-throughput open-weight multimodal assistants, enterprise RAG, and low-cost cloud inference on Groq and Cerebras — offering a 1,048k context window, 135ms TTFT, and $0.20/1M input pricing ($0.050/1M cached reads).
When should you choose Qwen 3.8 27B?
Choose Qwen 3.8 27B (Alibaba Cloud) for high-performance 27B open weights optimized for local deployment, code generation, and low-latency production pipelines — offering a 131k context window, 120ms TTFT, and $0.20/1M input pricing ($0.050/1M cached reads).
