Skip to content
Model Pareto

Qwen3.8 Flash-Next NVFP4

NVIDIAOpen weightsNVFP4quantized from Qwen3.8 Flash-Nexthuggingface.co ↗
Input
—
Output
—
Speed
~190tok/sest.
Context
262Ktokens

Rankings

Self-hostingEstimated

How we estimate →

What it would cost to run these open weights yourself on rented GPUs. No API sells this model, so this is its price on the chart.

Hardware
1× B200 180GB
NVFP4 weights
Throughput
~7,974 tok/s
many requests batched
Price
$0.079–0.70 /M tok
busy → light use
On your own machine
Mac Studio M5 Max 128GB (NVFP4, ~130 tok/s single-stream)
single consumer GPU or Mac
Assumptions (5)
  • NVFP4 weights (125B params, 6B active per token) + 25% KV-cache headroom ≈ 88 GB
  • 1× B200 180GB at $5.98–$14.24/GPU-hour on-demand (2026-09-24)
  • ~7,974 output tok/s aggregate at batch 228 (bandwidth-bound); MoE compute scales with active params
  • Blended 3:1 input:output; prefill ~177,188 tok/s
  • Low = 75% utilization at the low GPU price; high = 20% at the high price

Benchmark scores

~ italic, dashed = no published score yet, estimated from related benchmarks.

Coding

DeepSWE v1.1Estimated
~#31 of 32 (estimated)~32.4%
  1. #1GPT-6.1 Sol75.2%
  2. #2DeepSeek V4.1 Flash74.2%
  3. #30Nex-N2.5-Mini36.1%
  4. ~#31Qwen3.8 Flash-Next NVFP4Estimated32.4%
  5. #31Hy328.0%
No published score — estimated from related benchmarks

Writing & chat

Vision

MMMUEstimated
~#2 of 3 (estimated)~71.3%
  1. #1Claude Haiku 4.573.2%
  2. ~#2Qwen3.8 Flash-Next NVFP4Estimated71.3%
  3. #2Llama 4 Maverick69.4%
No published score — estimated from related benchmarks
~#5 of 9 (estimated)~82.0%
  1. #1Gemini 3.8 Flash86.2%
  2. #2Kimi K384.8%
  3. #4Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash83.5%
  4. ~#5Qwen3.8 Flash-Next NVFP4Estimated82.0%
  5. #5Muse Glimmer78.8%
No published score — estimated from related benchmarks
~#4 of 8 (estimated)~88.7%
  1. #1MiniMax-M391.6%
  2. #2Kimi K391.1%
  3. #2Qwen3.8 27B91.1%
  4. ~#4Qwen3.8 Flash-Next NVFP4Estimated88.7%
  5. #4Gemini 3.1 Pro85.3%
No published score — estimated from related benchmarks
GDP.pdf (AA)Estimated
~#16 of 43 (estimated)~17.6%
  1. #1GPT-6 Astra31.0%
  2. #2Muse Spark 1.326.6%
  3. #15Gemini 3.1 Pro17.8%
  4. ~#16Qwen3.8 Flash-Next NVFP4Estimated17.6%
  5. #16Grok 4.617.2%
No published score — estimated from related benchmarks
ChartographyEstimated
~#8 of 23 (estimated)~30.3%
  1. #1GPT-6 Astra71.0%
  2. #2Claude Opus 5.566.3%
  3. #7GPT-5.531.0%
  4. ~#8Qwen3.8 Flash-Next NVFP4Estimated30.3%
  5. #8GPT-6 Luna29.1%
No published score — estimated from related benchmarks

Hard reasoning

Agents

~#7 of 12 (estimated)~79.4%
  1. #1Kimi K384.8%
  2. #2Qwen3.8 27B84.3%
  3. #6MiMo-V2.6-Flash80.8%
  4. ~#7Qwen3.8 Flash-Next NVFP4Estimated79.4%
  5. #7GPT-5.578.7%
No published score — estimated from related benchmarks
OSWorld 2.0Estimated
~#3 of 5 (estimated)~53.8%
  1. #1GLM-5.3 Flash59.1%
  2. #2Kimi K358.3%
  3. ~#3Qwen3.8 Flash-Next NVFP4Estimated53.8%
  4. #3GPT-5.6 Terra50.2%
No published score — estimated from related benchmarks
BrowseCompEstimated
~#14 of 18 (estimated)~77.9%
  1. #1Atria Dawn Preview92.5%
  2. #2GPT-6 Astra91.5%
  3. #13Nex-N2.5-Mini83.4%
  4. ~#14Qwen3.8 Flash-Next NVFP4Estimated77.9%
  5. #14Inkling77.1%
No published score — estimated from related benchmarks
~#17 of 87 (estimated)~1492 Elo
  1. #1Claude Opus 5.51846
  2. #2Claude Fable 5.11735
  3. #16Kimi K31524
  4. ~#17Qwen3.8 Flash-Next NVFP4Estimated1492
  5. #17GPT-6 Sol1487
No published score — estimated from related benchmarks
~#23 of 90 (estimated)~28.9%
  1. #1Muse Spark 1.350.5%
  2. #2GLM-5.350.3%
  3. #22Inkling29.1%
  4. ~#23Qwen3.8 Flash-Next NVFP4Estimated28.9%
  5. #23Quasar 438B28.7%
No published score — estimated from related benchmarks