AlibabaChina· released Aug 2026

Qwen3.8 Max

Name: Qwen3.8 Max
Author: Alibaba

Provisional: 11 comparable tests so far. Ranked once it reaches 6 across 3 counting categories.

Alibaba, China. One of 19 models from this lab on the Index.

Third-party publishedLow confidence (thin coverage)

Snapshot September 8, 2026

OpenCharts Index

71.2

Provisional: not enough comparable tests or counting categories to rank yet · 11 comparable tests · 1 counting categories

Drop any single test and the Index lands between 61.8 and 79.1.

Needs more results (2 of 8 so far)

Averaging 63.7 on the 2 it has; the score opens at 4 of 8.

Distance to today's frontier on the hardest tests. Not a measure of intelligence.

What it's known for

Qwen3.8 Max, in 11 results.

Strongest in math (71.2). Its widest gap is on FrontierMath Tier 4, 52.5% behind the best published result. No comparable results yet in agentic and long context. Between 25% and 30% behind the best published results, on average.

Strongest category

Math

Competition and research mathematics, graded on the final answer or the proof.

71.2

Mock AIME 2024–202599.4% · 99% of best
FrontierMath (Tiers 1–3)74.7% · 80% of best
ProofBench58.0% · 58% of best
FrontierMath Tier 446.3% · 48% of best

Mean of 4 of the category's 5 comparable tests. Counts toward the Index.

Best single result

Mock AIME 2024–2025

Solve competition mathematics problems that have a single exact integer answer.

99.4%

99.4% of the best (100.0%) · #6 of 78.

Olympiad-style problems need long, careful chains of reasoning, and there is no partial credit.

Where it trails

FrontierMath Tier 4

Solve the hardest FrontierMath tier: problems that take expert mathematicians days.

46.3%

52.5% behind the best published result (97.6%) · #14 of 51.

The deepest end of the set. Progress here signals genuinely new capability.

Not measured yet

No comparable result yet in these 2 categories. A blank is a blank, never a zero, and it does not lower the Index.

Agentic
Long context

Covered, but not averaged into the Index:

Reasoning2 of 6 tests · needs 3 · mean 78.8
Knowledgesingle-test category, shown beside the Index · 60.6
Coding2 of 7 tests · needs 4 · mean 77.2
Multimodalsingle-test category, shown beside the Index · 96.2
Human preferencesingle-test category, shown beside the Index · 92.1

Every score, with its source

See it at work

What Qwen3.8 Max was asked to do, and how it did.

Every test it has taken, by category, with the kind of task it faced, who produced the number and where the result landed against the best published one. The examples are original and illustrative, never items from the datasets themselves.

Multimodal · mean 96.2 across 1 comparable test · a single-test category, shown beside the Index and never averaged into it

Vision ArenaLeaderboard

Answer prompts that include an image; real users vote blind between two models' answers.

1,300

48% expected win rate against the board leader (1,313)
#3 of 54

max · board 2026-08-27

Source: Arena

Every result is read against the best published one on its test: percent scores as a share of the best above chance, Arena ratings as the expected win rate against the board leader, open-ended values on a log scale. Sitting a harder exam never lowers a model. Every number links to the publisher that produced it.

Head to head

Qwen3.8 Max against whoever you pick.

Choose a rival. Every counted test both have taken appears side by side as a share of the best published result on that test, with the category means above. A win is a higher share; a gap under 2 points is a tie, because one item on a 45-problem exam is 2.2 points and publishers' own standard errors are of that order.

Qwen3.8 Max

provisional·Index 71.2B-

0 : 8

wins · 1 tie · 9 shared

GPT-6 Astra

#1·Index 99.0A+

GPT-6 Astra comes out ahead on 8 of the 9 tests both have taken.

Category means

Reasoning
78.8
99.6
Knowledge
60.6
100.0
Coding
77.2
97.7
Math
71.2
99.8
Agentic
—
98.5
Multimodal
96.2
—
Human preference
92.1
—

Shared tests · biggest gaps first

FrontierMath Tier 4Math
46.3%
97.6%
−52.5
ProofBenchMath
58.0%
99.0%
−41.0
SimpleQA VerifiedKnowledge
45.8%
75.6%
−39.4
CritPtReasoning
20.0%
31.7%
−36.3
Code Arena (WebDev)Coding
1,686
1,797
−30.9
FrontierMath (Tiers 1–3)Math
74.7%
93.7%
−20.2
SciCodeCoding
52.9%
56.5%
−5.7
GPQA DiamondReasoning
92.7%
95.8%
−4.4
Mock AIME 2024–2025Math
99.4%
100.0%
tie

Bars are distances to the best published result on each test (percent scores above chance, Arena ratings as win rate against the leader, open-ended values on a log scale). Raw values as the publishers report them.

Open GPT-6 Astra

Scores

Every test, every source

The best published run per benchmark, the raw value as the publisher reports it, who produced the number, how close it comes to the best published result on that test, and where the model sits among every model scored on it. Percent scores are read above chance, Arena ratings as a win rate against the board leader, open-ended values on a log scale. A test with too few models to compare against is shown but not counted.

Category means

Reasoning78.8 · 2/6
Knowledgebeside60.6 · 1/1
Coding77.2 · 2/7
Math71.2 · 4/5
Agentic—
Multimodalbeside96.2 · 1/1
Human preferencebeside92.1 · 1/1
Long context—

Mean · tests taken of the category's comparable tests. A faded category either rests on fewer than half of them or is a single-test category (marked “beside”), which is shown next to the Index and never averaged into it.

GPQA DiamondEpoch-runReasoning

92.7%

95.6% of the best (95.8%), above chance
83th percentile of 78 · n = 198

max · xhigh

Source: Epoch AI — AI Benchmarking Hub

CritPtLeaderboardReasoning

20.0%

61.9% of the best (32.3%)
81th percentile of 78

max

Source: Epoch AI — AI Benchmarking Hub

SimpleQA VerifiedEpoch-runKnowledge

45.8%