Model comparison

Magistral Small vs Qwen3.8 27B

Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.3 to 29.9 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 4 shared benchmarks.

Magistral Small Mistral AI

29.9

Rank #289 Confirmed

Qwen3.8 27B Alibaba (Qwen)

45.3

Rank #64 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 4 benchmarks with published results for both. Magistral Small scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.8 27B in 4 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen3.8 27B leads 31.5 to 6.9.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is DTBench: 61.3% for Magistral Small and 88% for Qwen3.8 27B.
  • Magistral Small is cheaper at $0.50 / $1.50 per million input/output tokens, against $0.99 / $1.49 for Qwen3.8 27B.
  • Qwen3.8 27B accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 128K.

Side by side

Magistral Small and Qwen3.8 27B specifications
Magistral SmallQwen3.8 27B
ProviderMistral AIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index29.945.3
Released2025-06-102026-08-14
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window128K262K
Max output40K33K
Input $ / M tokens$0.50$0.99
Output $ / M tokens$1.50$1.49
Results tracked1028

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.8 27B leads

Magistral Small: 37.8 (#172), Qwen3.8 27B: 50.3 (#42)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkMagistral SmallQwen3.8 27B
SciCode35.2%46.6%
LMArena WebDev—1592
LMArena Coding—1487

Reasoning Qwen3.8 27B leads

Magistral Small: 6.9 (#345), Qwen3.8 27B: 31.5 (#71)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkMagistral SmallQwen3.8 27B
CritPt0.3%5.4%
DTBench61.3%88%
Epoch Capabilities Index133.19149.38
ARC-AGI-20%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark6.3%—
NYT Connections (extended)—54.5%
ARC-AGI-15%—
Chess Puzzles3%—
LMArena Hard Prompts—1459
LMCA—41.4%
Surface Evolver Bench—45%

Math Qwen3.8 27B leads

Magistral Small: 24.9 (#253), Qwen3.8 27B: 35.7 (#139)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkMagistral SmallQwen3.8 27B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202530%—
ProofBench—16%
LMArena Math—1453

Knowledge Qwen3.8 27B leads

Magistral Small: 30.9 (#215), Qwen3.8 27B: 40.9 (#105)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkMagistral SmallQwen3.8 27B
GPQA Diamond56.1%—
LMArena Expert—1482

Multimodal Not comparable

Magistral Small: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 40.5 (#36)

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkMagistral SmallQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Vision—1270

Multilingual Not comparable

Magistral Small: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 54.0 (#54)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkMagistral SmallQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Non-English—1431
LMArena Chinese—1504
LMArena French—1468
LMArena German—1435
LMArena Japanese—1392
LMArena Korean—1389
LMArena Russian—1421
LMArena Spanish—1444

Instruction Following Not comparable

Magistral Small: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 75.8 (#54)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkMagistral SmallQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Instruction Following—1436

Long Context Not comparable

Magistral Small: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 44.3 (#66)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkMagistral SmallQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Longer Query—1448

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Magistral Small: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 65.9 (#41)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkMagistral SmallQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text—1441
LMArena Creative Writing—1382
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—1671
LMArena Multi-Turn—1443

Frequently asked questions

Is Magistral Small better than Qwen3.8 27B?

Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.3 to 29.9 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Magistral Small or Qwen3.8 27B?

Magistral Small is cheaper. It lists at $0.50 per million input tokens and $1.50 per million output tokens; Qwen3.8 27B lists at $0.99 and $1.49.

Is Magistral Small or Qwen3.8 27B better for coding?

Qwen3.8 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.3 versus 37.8 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.8 27B does, with 262K tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do Magistral Small and Qwen3.8 27B share?

4 benchmarks have published results for both models. Magistral Small has 10 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.8 27B has 28.

Related comparisons

Go deeper