Qwen 3.8 Flash Next
Qwen Community License 1.0 ★ Pareto-Optimal FrontierDeveloped by Alibaba Cloud · 125B/6B Sparse MoE (512 Experts, 10 Active) with 51B N-Gram Embedding & Vision Encoder · Modalities: Text, Vision, Video · Released 2026-02-20
What are the token costs and operational benchmarks for Qwen 3.8 Flash Next?
Verified Capability Benchmarks
Composite Intelligence: 87.9/100Architectural & Production Profile
High-speed Apache 2.0 sparse MoE model with 1M context window and sub-100ms TTFT latency.
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.
- Architecture
- 125B/6B Sparse MoE (512 Experts, 10 Active) with 51B N-Gram Embedding & Vision Encoder
- Modalities
- Text, Vision, Video
- Max Output Tokens
- 65,536 tokens
- Blended Rate (3:1)
- $0.237 / 1M
Verified Cloud Inference Endpoints Hosting Qwen 3.8 Flash Next
Compare latency, streaming speed, and token pricing across cloud API providers.
| Inference Provider | Role | Input / 1M | Output / 1M | Avg TTFT | Throughput |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alibaba Cloud DashScope → | Primary Host | $0.16 | $0.47 | 280ms | 185 tok/s |
| Groq LPU Inference → | Partner Endpoint | $0.16 | $0.47 | 255ms | 296 tok/s |
Interactive Monthly Token Economics & ROI Forecaster
Model production workloads across prompt, completion, and cached context tokens, or switch models on the fly.
Estimated Monthly Spend
$0.16/1M in · $0.47/1M out
Prompt Cache: $0.016/1M read · $0.20/1M write
$2.00/1M in · $10.00/1M out
Prompt Cache: $0.100/1M read · $0.50/1M write
Head-to-Head Comparisons Involving Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (36)
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next vs Gemini 4 Argon
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next delivers massive cost and speed advantages, while Gemini 4 Argon retains a slight edge in peak capability. Qwen cuts input costs by 92.0% ($0.16 vs. $2.00) and output to $0.47 vs. $10.00, delivering 280ms TTFT (570ms faster) and 185 tok/s. Gemini leads SWE-bench (84.5% vs. 81.0%) and GPQA (93.8% vs. 91.7%).
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next vs DeepSeek V3
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next delivers superior capability and speed, outclassing DeepSeek V3 despite higher pricing. Qwen dominates SWE-bench Verified (81.0% vs. 42.0%) and GPQA Diamond (91.7% vs. 59.1%), alongside a 280ms TTFT (130ms faster) and 185 vs. 78 tok/s throughput. DeepSeek V3 is 12.5% cheaper on input ($0.14 vs. $0.16) and $0.28 vs. $0.47 for output.
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next vs Claude 4.5 Sonnet
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next decisively outperforms Claude 4.5 Sonnet in both pricing and capability. Qwen is 94.7% cheaper for input ($0.16 vs. $3.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.47 vs. $15.00 for output. It also leads on SWE-bench Verified (81.0% vs. 75.8%) and GPQA Diamond (91.7% vs. 84.2%), while delivering faster 280ms TTFT latency and 185 tok/s throughput.
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next vs Claude Opus 5.5
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 96.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.16 vs. $4.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.47 vs. $20.00 for output tokens (25.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Qwen 3.8 Flash Next delivers lower response latency at 280ms TTFT (400ms faster than Claude Opus 5.5) with 185 vs. 95 tok/s throughput. Claude Opus 5.5 leads coding evaluations at 89.9% SWE-bench Verified vs. 81.0% for Qwen 3.8 Flash Next and 93.2% vs. 91.7% on GPQA Diamond.
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next vs Gemini 3.8 Flash
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 36.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.16 vs. $0.25 per 1M tokens) and $0.47 vs. $1.50 for output tokens (1.6x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 3.8 Flash delivers lower response latency at 105ms TTFT (175ms faster than Qwen 3.8 Flash Next) with 210 vs. 185 tok/s throughput. Qwen 3.8 Flash Next leads coding evaluations at 81.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 68.5% for Gemini 3.8 Flash and 91.7% vs. 79.2% on GPQA Diamond.
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next vs GPT-5
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next outperforms GPT-5 in capability while delivering a 15.6x cost advantage. Input costs 93.6% less ($0.16 vs. $2.50 per 1M) with $0.47 vs. $10.00 output pricing. Qwen also achieves lower latency (280ms TTFT, 60ms faster), higher throughput (185 vs. 105 tok/s), and leads SWE-bench Verified (81.0% vs. 74.9%) and GPQA Diamond (91.7% vs. 85.4%).
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next vs GPT-6 Astra
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 98.4% cheaper for input tokens ($0.16 vs. $10.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.47 vs. $50.00 for output tokens (62.5x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Qwen 3.8 Flash Next delivers lower response latency at 280ms TTFT (460ms faster than GPT-6 Astra) with 185 vs. 74 tok/s throughput. Qwen 3.8 Flash Next leads coding evaluations at 81.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 75.7% for GPT-6 Astra and 91.7% vs. 96.0% on GPQA Diamond.
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next vs DeepSeek V4 Pro
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 87.9% cheaper for input tokens ($0.16 vs. $1.32 per 1M tokens) and $0.47 vs. $3.96 for output tokens (8.2x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Qwen 3.8 Flash Next delivers lower response latency at 280ms TTFT (240ms faster than DeepSeek V4 Pro) with 185 vs. 78 tok/s throughput. Qwen 3.8 Flash Next leads coding evaluations at 81.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 80.6% for DeepSeek V4 Pro and 91.7% vs. 90.1% on GPQA Diamond.
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next vs DeepSeek R1
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 70.9% cheaper for input tokens ($0.16 vs. $0.55 per 1M tokens) and $0.47 vs. $2.19 for output tokens (3.4x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Qwen 3.8 Flash Next delivers lower response latency at 280ms TTFT (1170ms faster than DeepSeek R1) with 185 vs. 58 tok/s throughput. Qwen 3.8 Flash Next leads coding evaluations at 81.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 49.2% for DeepSeek R1 and 91.7% vs. 71.5% on GPQA Diamond.
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next vs DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp)
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next outperforms DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) across cost, speed, and capability. Qwen is 27.3% cheaper on input ($0.16 vs. $0.22) and costs $0.47 vs. $0.65 per 1M output tokens. It delivers 280ms TTFT (30ms faster), 185 vs. 165 tok/s throughput, and leads SWE-bench Verified (81.0% vs. 77.4%) and GPQA Diamond (91.7% vs. 91.3%).
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next vs OpenAI o3
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next delivers superior performance at a massive cost advantage over OpenAI o3. It slashes input pricing by 92.0% ($0.16 vs. $2.00/1M) and output to $0.47 vs. $8.00. Furthermore, Qwen leads in latency (280ms TTFT, 870ms faster), throughput (185 vs. 82 tok/s), SWE-bench Verified (81.0% vs. 71.7%), and GPQA Diamond (91.7% vs. 87.7%).
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next vs Claude 4 Opus
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 98.9% cheaper for input tokens ($0.16 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.47 vs. $75.00 for output tokens (93.8x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Qwen 3.8 Flash Next delivers lower response latency at 280ms TTFT (640ms faster than Claude 4 Opus) with 185 vs. 46 tok/s throughput. Qwen 3.8 Flash Next leads coding evaluations at 81.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 77.2% for Claude 4 Opus and 91.7% vs. 87.1% on GPQA Diamond.
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next vs Claude 3.7 Sonnet
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 94.7% cheaper for input tokens ($0.16 vs. $3.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.47 vs. $15.00 for output tokens (18.8x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Qwen 3.8 Flash Next delivers lower response latency at 280ms TTFT (260ms faster than Claude 3.7 Sonnet) with 185 vs. 72 tok/s throughput. Qwen 3.8 Flash Next leads coding evaluations at 81.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 70.3% for Claude 3.7 Sonnet and 91.7% vs. 78.5% on GPQA Diamond.
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next vs Gemini 3.1 Pro
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 87.2% cheaper for input tokens ($0.16 vs. $1.25 per 1M tokens) and $0.47 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (7.8x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Qwen 3.8 Flash Next delivers lower response latency at 280ms TTFT (140ms faster than Gemini 3.1 Pro) with 185 vs. 98 tok/s throughput. Qwen 3.8 Flash Next leads coding evaluations at 81.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 71.8% for Gemini 3.1 Pro and 91.7% vs. 82.4% on GPQA Diamond.
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next vs Grok 4
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 93.6% cheaper for input tokens ($0.16 vs. $2.50 per 1M tokens) and $0.47 vs. $12.50 for output tokens (15.6x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Qwen 3.8 Flash Next delivers lower response latency at 280ms TTFT (200ms faster than Grok 4) with 185 vs. 95 tok/s throughput. Qwen 3.8 Flash Next leads coding evaluations at 81.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 73.2% for Grok 4 and 91.7% vs. 86.2% on GPQA Diamond.
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next vs Llama 4 Maverick
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.
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next vs Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is 53.1% cheaper for input tokens ($0.07 vs. $0.16 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $0.47 for output tokens (2.1x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite delivers lower response latency at 78ms TTFT (202ms faster than Qwen 3.8 Flash Next) with 265 vs. 185 tok/s throughput. Qwen 3.8 Flash Next leads coding evaluations at 81.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 55.4% for Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and 91.7% vs. 68.4% on GPQA Diamond.
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next vs OpenAI o4-mini
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 85.5% cheaper for input tokens ($0.16 vs. $1.10 per 1M tokens) and $0.47 vs. $4.40 for output tokens (6.9x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Qwen 3.8 Flash Next delivers lower response latency at 280ms TTFT (400ms faster than OpenAI o4-mini) with 185 vs. 125 tok/s throughput. Qwen 3.8 Flash Next leads coding evaluations at 81.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 68.1% for OpenAI o4-mini and 91.7% vs. 81.4% on GPQA Diamond.
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next vs Gemma 4 31B IT
Gemma 4 31B IT is 25.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $0.16 per 1M tokens) and $0.36 vs. $0.47 for output tokens (1.3x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemma 4 31B IT delivers lower response latency at 115ms TTFT (165ms faster than Qwen 3.8 Flash Next) with 155 vs. 185 tok/s throughput. Qwen 3.8 Flash Next leads coding evaluations at 81.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 59.2% for Gemma 4 31B IT and 91.7% vs. 71.2% on GPQA Diamond.
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next vs OpenAI o3-mini
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 85.5% cheaper for input tokens ($0.16 vs. $1.10 per 1M tokens) and $0.47 vs. $4.40 for output tokens (6.9x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Qwen 3.8 Flash Next delivers lower response latency at 280ms TTFT (670ms faster than OpenAI o3-mini) with 185 vs. 98 tok/s throughput. Qwen 3.8 Flash Next leads coding evaluations at 81.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 49.3% for OpenAI o3-mini and 91.7% vs. 79.7% on GPQA Diamond.
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next vs Gemini 2.0 Flash
Gemini 2.0 Flash excels in speed and cost efficiency, while Qwen3.8-Flash-Next dominates reasoning and coding benchmarks. Gemini is 37.5% cheaper on input ($0.10 vs. $0.16 per 1M tokens), 920ms faster at 280ms TTFT, and hits 185 vs. 65 tok/s. Conversely, Qwen3.8-Flash-Next leads SWE-bench Verified (81.0% vs. 51.8%) and GPQA Diamond (91.7% vs. 63.6%).
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next vs Claude 3.5 Haiku
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 80.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.16 vs. $0.80 per 1M tokens) and $0.47 vs. $4.00 for output tokens (5.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Claude 3.5 Haiku delivers lower response latency at 190ms TTFT (90ms faster than Qwen 3.8 Flash Next) with 130 vs. 185 tok/s throughput. Qwen 3.8 Flash Next leads coding evaluations at 81.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 40.6% for Claude 3.5 Haiku and 91.7% vs. 41.6% on GPQA Diamond.
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next vs Claude 3.5 Sonnet
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 94.7% cheaper for input tokens ($0.16 vs. $3.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.47 vs. $15.00 for output tokens (18.8x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Qwen 3.8 Flash Next delivers lower response latency at 280ms TTFT (30ms faster than Claude 3.5 Sonnet) with 185 vs. 80 tok/s throughput. Qwen 3.8 Flash Next leads coding evaluations at 81.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 49.0% for Claude 3.5 Sonnet and 91.7% vs. 59.4% on GPQA Diamond.
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next vs Gemini 2.5 Flash
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 46.7% cheaper for input tokens ($0.16 vs. $0.30 per 1M tokens) and $0.47 vs. $2.50 for output tokens (1.9x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Gemini 2.5 Flash delivers lower response latency at 110ms TTFT (170ms faster than Qwen 3.8 Flash Next) with 180 vs. 185 tok/s throughput. Qwen 3.8 Flash Next leads coding evaluations at 81.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 58.0% for Gemini 2.5 Flash and 91.7% vs. 70.5% on GPQA Diamond.
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next vs Gemini 2.5 Pro
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 87.2% cheaper for input tokens ($0.16 vs. $1.25 per 1M tokens) and $0.47 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (7.8x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Qwen 3.8 Flash Next delivers lower response latency at 280ms TTFT (420ms faster than Gemini 2.5 Pro) with 185 vs. 80 tok/s throughput. Qwen 3.8 Flash Next leads coding evaluations at 81.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 63.8% for Gemini 2.5 Pro and 91.7% vs. 74.0% on GPQA Diamond.
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next vs GLM-5.3-Flash
GLM-5.3-Flash is 25.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $0.16 per 1M tokens) and $0.40 vs. $0.47 for output tokens (1.3x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GLM-5.3-Flash delivers lower response latency at 90ms TTFT (190ms 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. 52.8% for GLM-5.3-Flash and 91.7% vs. 63.5% on GPQA Diamond.
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next vs GLM-5.3
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 54.3% cheaper for input tokens ($0.16 vs. $0.35 per 1M tokens) and $0.47 vs. $1.00 for output tokens (2.2x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GLM-5.3 delivers lower response latency at 160ms TTFT (120ms faster than Qwen 3.8 Flash Next) with 120 vs. 185 tok/s throughput. Qwen 3.8 Flash Next leads coding evaluations at 81.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 56.0% for GLM-5.3 and 91.7% vs. 67.0% on GPQA Diamond.
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next vs GPT-4o Mini
GPT-4o Mini is 6.2% cheaper for input tokens ($0.15 vs. $0.16 per 1M tokens) and $0.60 vs. $0.47 for output tokens (1.1x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, GPT-4o Mini delivers lower response latency at 220ms TTFT (60ms faster than Qwen 3.8 Flash Next) with 140 vs. 185 tok/s throughput. Qwen 3.8 Flash Next leads coding evaluations at 81.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 41.0% for GPT-4o Mini and 91.7% vs. 40.2% on GPQA Diamond.
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next vs GPT-4o
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 93.6% cheaper for input tokens ($0.16 vs. $2.50 per 1M tokens) and $0.47 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (15.6x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Both models demonstrate comparable response latency around 280ms TTFT (100 vs. 185 tok/s). Qwen 3.8 Flash Next leads coding evaluations at 81.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 48.0% for GPT-4o and 91.7% vs. 53.6% on GPQA Diamond.
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next vs GPT-6.1 Sol
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 92.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.16 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.47 vs. $10.00 for output tokens (12.5x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Qwen 3.8 Flash Next delivers lower response latency at 280ms TTFT (240ms faster than GPT-6.1 Sol) with 185 vs. 135 tok/s throughput. GPT-6.1 Sol leads coding evaluations at 86.4% SWE-bench Verified vs. 81.0% for Qwen 3.8 Flash Next and 92.4% vs. 91.7% on GPQA Diamond.
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next vs Grok 3 Mini
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 46.7% cheaper for input tokens ($0.16 vs. $0.30 per 1M tokens) and $0.47 vs. $1.20 for output tokens (1.9x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Grok 3 Mini delivers lower response latency at 150ms TTFT (130ms faster than Qwen 3.8 Flash Next) with 160 vs. 185 tok/s throughput. Qwen 3.8 Flash Next leads coding evaluations at 81.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 54.0% for Grok 3 Mini and 91.7% vs. 68.0% on GPQA Diamond.
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next vs Grok 3
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 94.7% cheaper for input tokens ($0.16 vs. $3.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.47 vs. $15.00 for output tokens (18.8x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Qwen 3.8 Flash Next delivers lower response latency at 280ms TTFT (340ms faster than Grok 3) with 185 vs. 88 tok/s throughput. Qwen 3.8 Flash Next leads coding evaluations at 81.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 65.8% for Grok 3 and 91.7% vs. 84.6% on GPQA Diamond.
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next vs Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct is 25.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $0.16 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $0.47 for output tokens (1.3x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Llama 3.3 70B Instruct delivers lower response latency at 145ms TTFT (135ms faster than Qwen 3.8 Flash Next) with 165 vs. 185 tok/s throughput. Qwen 3.8 Flash Next leads coding evaluations at 81.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 42.5% for Llama 3.3 70B Instruct and 91.7% vs. 55.6% on GPQA Diamond.
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next vs Mistral Large 2 (2411)
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 92.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.16 vs. $2.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.47 vs. $6.00 for output tokens (12.5x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Qwen 3.8 Flash Next delivers lower response latency at 280ms TTFT (100ms faster than Mistral Large 2 (2411)) with 185 vs. 75 tok/s throughput. Qwen 3.8 Flash Next leads coding evaluations at 81.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 45.2% for Mistral Large 2 (2411) and 91.7% vs. 54.2% on GPQA Diamond.
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next vs o1
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 98.9% cheaper for input tokens ($0.16 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.47 vs. $60.00 for output tokens (93.8x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Qwen 3.8 Flash Next delivers lower response latency at 280ms TTFT (2320ms faster than o1) with 185 vs. 48 tok/s throughput. Qwen 3.8 Flash Next leads coding evaluations at 81.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 48.9% for o1 and 91.7% vs. 78.0% on GPQA Diamond.
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next vs Qwen 3.8 27B
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, Qwen 3.8 27B delivers lower response latency at 120ms TTFT (160ms faster than Qwen 3.8 Flash Next) with 140 vs. 185 tok/s throughput. Qwen 3.8 Flash Next leads coding evaluations at 81.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 58.4% for Qwen 3.8 27B and 91.7% vs. 68.0% on GPQA Diamond.
Frequently Asked Questions & Query Fan-Out
How much does Qwen 3.8 Flash Next cost per 1M tokens including prompt caching?
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next costs $0.16 per million input tokens and $0.47 per million output tokens. Cached input reads cost $0.016 per 1M tokens, reducing repeated context costs by 90%.
What are Qwen 3.8 Flash Next's coding and reasoning benchmark scores?
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next achieves 81% on SWE-bench Verified, 95.1% on HumanEval coding, 91.7% on GPQA Diamond graduate-level science, 88.4% on MMLU-Pro, and 95.7% on MATH-500, earning an overall Inference Value Ratio (IVR) of 85.1/100.
What is the context window, TTFT latency, and token throughput of Qwen 3.8 Flash Next?
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next supports a 268,288 token context window (65,536 max output tokens) and operates at 280ms average Time to First Token (TTFT) with 185 tokens/sec output streaming throughput.
What are the primary production use cases for Qwen 3.8 Flash Next?
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.