Which model is better: Llama 4 Maverick or Qwen 3.8 Flash Next?
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 20.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.16 vs. $0.20 per 1M tokens) and $0.47 vs. $0.60 for output tokens (1.2x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Llama 4 Maverick delivers lower response latency at 135ms TTFT (145ms faster than Qwen 3.8 Flash Next) with 175 vs. 185 tok/s throughput. Qwen 3.8 Flash Next leads coding evaluations at 81.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 62.4% for Llama 4 Maverick and 91.7% vs. 73.8% 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 Flash Next
Net Delta / Advantage
Input Cost / 1M Tokens
$0.20
$0.16
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 1.3x cheaper
Output Cost / 1M Tokens
$0.60
$0.47
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (21.7% lower)
Prompt Cache Read / 1M
$0.050
$0.016
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 3.1x cheaper
Prompt Cache Write / 1M
$0.20
$0.20
Identical Cache Write Pricing
Context Window (Max Output)
1,049k (33k out)
268k (66k out)
Llama 4 Maverick (3.9x larger context)
Avg TTFT Response Latency
135ms
280ms
Llama 4 Maverick (145ms faster)
Generation Speed (Throughput)
175 tok/s
185 tok/s
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (+10 tok/s faster)
SWE-bench Verified (Coding)
62.4%
81%
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (+18.6% lead)
GPQA Diamond (PhD STEM)
73.8%
91.7%
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (+17.9% lead)
MMLU-Pro (Multi-Discipline)
84.5%
88.4%
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (+3.9% lead)
MATH-500 (Quantitative Logic)
91%
95.7%
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (+4.7% lead)
Inference Value Score (IVR)
77 / 100
85.1 / 100
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (+8.1 pts)
Interactive Monthly Token Economics & ROI Forecaster
Model production workloads across prompt, completion, and cached context tokens, or switch models on the fly.
Which is cheaper: Llama 4 Maverick or Qwen 3.8 Flash Next?
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is cheaper at $0.16/1M input tokens ($0.47/1M output) compared to $0.20/1M input ($0.60/1M output) for Llama 4 Maverick.
Which model has lower TTFT latency and higher tok/s throughput: Llama 4 Maverick or Qwen 3.8 Flash Next?
Llama 4 Maverick delivers faster first-token latency at 135ms TTFT (175 tok/s throughput) compared to 280ms TTFT (185 tok/s) for Qwen 3.8 Flash Next.
How do Llama 4 Maverick and Qwen 3.8 Flash Next compare on SWE-bench coding and GPQA Diamond reasoning?
On SWE-bench Verified software engineering, Llama 4 Maverick scores 62.4% versus 81% for Qwen 3.8 Flash Next. On GPQA Diamond graduate-level STEM reasoning, Llama 4 Maverick scores 73.8% versus 91.7% for Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (and 91% vs 95.7% 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 Flash Next?
Choose Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (Alibaba Cloud) for next-generation open-weight multimodal MoE activating only 6B parameters per token for ultra-low-cost enterprise office automation, tool calling, and multilingual repository engineering — offering a 268k context window, 280ms TTFT, and $0.16/1M input pricing ($0.016/1M cached reads).
