Model comparison

Pixtral Large vs Qwen3.8 27B

Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.0 to 32.2 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.

Pixtral Large Mistral AI

32.2

Rank #259 Reported

Qwen3.8 27B Alibaba (Qwen)

46.0

Rank #68 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. Pixtral Large scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.8 27B in 3 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen3.8 27B leads 65.8 to 32.9.
  • Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper at $0.04 / $2.30 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $6 for Pixtral Large.
  • Qwen3.8 27B accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 128K.

Side by side

Pixtral Large and Qwen3.8 27B specifications
Pixtral LargeQwen3.8 27B
ProviderMistral AIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index32.246.0
Released2024-11-012026-08-14
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window128K262K
Max output128K33K
Input $ / M tokens$2$0.04
Output $ / M tokens$6$2.30
Results tracked331

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

Pixtral Large: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 50.5 (#44)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkPixtral LargeQwen3.8 27B
LMArena WebDev—1593
SciCode—46.6%
LMArena Coding—1482

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Pixtral Large: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 32.9 (#57)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkPixtral LargeQwen3.8 27B
APEX-Agents—47.5%

Reasoning Qwen3.8 27B leads

Pixtral Large: 21.7 (#218), Qwen3.8 27B: 41.0 (#54)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkPixtral LargeQwen3.8 27B
ARC-AGI-2—42.4%
NYT Connections (extended)—54.5%
ARC-AGI-1—87.5%
CritPt—5.4%
EnigmaEval0.8%—
LMArena Hard Prompts—1460
DTBench—88%
LMCA—41.4%
Surface Evolver Bench—45%
Epoch Capabilities Index—149.38

Math Not comparable

Pixtral Large: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 37.1 (#161)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkPixtral LargeQwen3.8 27B
ProofBench—16%
LMArena Math—1456

Knowledge Not comparable

Pixtral Large: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 41.6 (#109)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkPixtral LargeQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Expert—1482

Multimodal Qwen3.8 27B leads

Pixtral Large: 30.6 (#111), Qwen3.8 27B: 41.3 (#37)

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkPixtral LargeQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Vision10891271

Multilingual Not comparable

Pixtral Large: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 53.7 (#60)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkPixtral LargeQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Non-English—1430
LMArena Chinese—1504
LMArena French—1465
LMArena German—1438
LMArena Japanese—1384
LMArena Korean—1393
LMArena Russian—1415
LMArena Spanish—1448

Instruction Following Not comparable

Pixtral Large: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 75.8 (#53)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkPixtral LargeQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Instruction Following—1439

Long Context Not comparable

Pixtral Large: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 44.3 (#70)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkPixtral LargeQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Longer Query—1450

Writing & Preference Qwen3.8 27B leads

Pixtral Large: 32.9 (#278), Qwen3.8 27B: 65.8 (#43)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkPixtral LargeQwen3.8 27B
EQ-Bench Creative Writing9881671
LMArena Text—1441
LMArena Creative Writing—1384
LMArena Multi-Turn—1441

Frequently asked questions

Is Pixtral Large better than Qwen3.8 27B?

Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.0 to 32.2 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Pixtral Large or Qwen3.8 27B?

Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper. It lists at $0.04 per million input tokens and $2.30 per million output tokens; Pixtral Large lists at $2 and $6.

Which has the bigger context window?

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

How many benchmarks do Pixtral Large and Qwen3.8 27B share?

2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Pixtral Large has 3 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.8 27B has 31.

Related comparisons

Go deeper