Noometry

Model comparison

Qwen1.5-110B vs Qwen3.8 Max

Qwen3.8 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.8 to 34.2 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.

Qwen1.5-110B Alibaba (Qwen)

34.2

Rank #234 Confirmed

Qwen3.8 Max Alibaba (Qwen)

56.8

Rank #22 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen1.5-110B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.8 Max in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.8 Max leads 73.2 to 33.7.
  • Qwen1.5-110B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Qwen1.5-110BQwen3.8 Max
ProviderAlibaba (Qwen)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index34.256.8
Released2024-04-252026-08-02
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window—1M
Max output—131K
Input $ / M tokens—$2
Output $ / M tokens—$6
Results tracked2039

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.8 Max leads

Qwen1.5-110B: 33.0 (#264), Qwen3.8 Max: 53.5 (#29)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-110BQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Coding11841502
DeepSWE—57.5%
LMArena WebDev—1674
FrontierSWE—17.8%
SciCode—53.2%
BigCodeBench Instruct35%—
BigCodeBench Complete44.4%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Qwen1.5-110B: —, Qwen3.8 Max: 45.4 (#14)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-110BQwen3.8 Max
APEX-Agents—63.3%
τ²-bench Banking—55.1%
GDP.pdf—23.2%

Reasoning Qwen3.8 Max leads

Qwen1.5-110B: 22.7 (#189), Qwen3.8 Max: 54.4 (#26)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-110BQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Hard Prompts11681496
NYT Connections (extended)—88.3%
CritPt—20%
Chess Puzzles—40%
Mystery Game Puzzles—38%
DTBench—92%
LMCA—46.2%
Epoch Capabilities Index—156.41
ForecastBench57.7—

Math Qwen3.8 Max leads

Qwen1.5-110B: 33.7 (#201), Qwen3.8 Max: 73.2 (#20)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-110BQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Math11851499
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—74.7%
FrontierMath Tier 4—46.3%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—100%
ProofBench—58%

Knowledge Qwen3.8 Max leads

Qwen1.5-110B: 31.2 (#219), Qwen3.8 Max: 61.7 (#27)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-110BQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Expert11441507
GPQA Diamond—92.7%
SimpleQA Verified—47.3%

Multimodal Not comparable

Qwen1.5-110B: —, Qwen3.8 Max: 37.2 (#75)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-110BQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Vision—1314
Furniture Assembly—20%

Multilingual Qwen3.8 Max leads

Qwen1.5-110B: 33.6 (#250), Qwen3.8 Max: 56.7 (#18)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-110BQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Non-English11421472
LMArena Chinese12061538
LMArena French11511503
LMArena German11231483
LMArena Japanese10741467
LMArena Korean10441461
LMArena Russian11181481
LMArena Spanish11421492

Instruction Following Qwen3.8 Max leads

Qwen1.5-110B: 60.3 (#252), Qwen3.8 Max: 77.6 (#17)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-110BQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Instruction Following11581479

Long Context Qwen3.8 Max leads

Qwen1.5-110B: 35.1 (#242), Qwen3.8 Max: 45.6 (#31)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-110BQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Longer Query11571489

Writing & Preference Qwen3.8 Max leads

Qwen1.5-110B: 38.0 (#255), Qwen3.8 Max: 67.1 (#30)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-110BQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Text11751483
LMArena Creative Writing11481479
LMArena Multi-Turn11601489

Frequently asked questions

Is Qwen1.5-110B better than Qwen3.8 Max?

Qwen3.8 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.8 to 34.2 on the Noometry Index.

Is Qwen1.5-110B or Qwen3.8 Max better for coding?

Qwen3.8 Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.5 versus 33.0 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Qwen1.5-110B and Qwen3.8 Max share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen1.5-110B has 20 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.8 Max has 39.

Related comparisons

Go deeper