Noometry

Model comparison

Qwen1.5 4b Chat vs Qwen3.8 Max

Qwen3.8 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.8 to 28.8 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.

Qwen1.5 4b Chat Alibaba (Qwen)

28.8

Rank #322 Confirmed

Qwen3.8 Max Alibaba (Qwen)

56.8

Rank #22 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen1.5 4b Chat scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.8 Max in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen3.8 Max leads 67.1 to 23.8.
  • Qwen1.5 4b Chat has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Qwen1.5 4b ChatQwen3.8 Max
ProviderAlibaba (Qwen)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index28.856.8
Released—2026-08-02
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window—1M
Max output—131K
Input $ / M tokens—$2
Output $ / M tokens—$6
Results tracked1339

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.8 Max leads

Qwen1.5 4b Chat: 29.1 (#308), Qwen3.8 Max: 53.5 (#29)

BenchmarkQwen1.5 4b ChatQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Coding9991502
DeepSWE—57.5%
LMArena WebDev—1674
FrontierSWE—17.8%
SciCode—53.2%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Qwen1.5 4b Chat: —, Qwen3.8 Max: 45.4 (#14)

BenchmarkQwen1.5 4b ChatQwen3.8 Max
APEX-Agents—63.3%
τ²-bench Banking—55.1%
GDP.pdf—23.2%

Reasoning Qwen3.8 Max leads

Qwen1.5 4b Chat: 18.5 (#279), Qwen3.8 Max: 54.4 (#26)

BenchmarkQwen1.5 4b ChatQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Hard Prompts9761496
NYT Connections (extended)—88.3%
CritPt—20%
Chess Puzzles—40%
Mystery Game Puzzles—38%
DTBench—92%
LMCA—46.2%
Epoch Capabilities Index—156.41

Math Qwen3.8 Max leads

Qwen1.5 4b Chat: 30.4 (#234), Qwen3.8 Max: 73.2 (#20)

BenchmarkQwen1.5 4b ChatQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Math10261499
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 4b Chat: 26.7 (#255), Qwen3.8 Max: 61.7 (#27)

BenchmarkQwen1.5 4b ChatQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Expert9801507
GPQA Diamond—92.7%
SimpleQA Verified—47.3%

Multimodal Not comparable

Qwen1.5 4b Chat: —, Qwen3.8 Max: 37.2 (#75)

BenchmarkQwen1.5 4b ChatQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Vision—1314
Furniture Assembly—20%

Multilingual Qwen3.8 Max leads

Qwen1.5 4b Chat: 24.1 (#290), Qwen3.8 Max: 56.7 (#18)

BenchmarkQwen1.5 4b ChatQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Non-English9791472
LMArena Chinese10241538
LMArena German9021483
LMArena Russian9521481
LMArena French—1503
LMArena Japanese—1467
LMArena Korean—1461
LMArena Spanish—1492

Instruction Following Qwen3.8 Max leads

Qwen1.5 4b Chat: 49.0 (#300), Qwen3.8 Max: 77.6 (#17)

BenchmarkQwen1.5 4b ChatQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Instruction Following9781479

Long Context Qwen3.8 Max leads

Qwen1.5 4b Chat: 30.1 (#290), Qwen3.8 Max: 45.6 (#31)

BenchmarkQwen1.5 4b ChatQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Longer Query9881489

Writing & Preference Qwen3.8 Max leads

Qwen1.5 4b Chat: 23.8 (#309), Qwen3.8 Max: 67.1 (#30)

BenchmarkQwen1.5 4b ChatQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Text9971483
LMArena Creative Writing9691479
LMArena Multi-Turn9771489

Frequently asked questions

Is Qwen1.5 4b Chat better than Qwen3.8 Max?

Qwen3.8 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.8 to 28.8 on the Noometry Index.

Is Qwen1.5 4b Chat or Qwen3.8 Max better for coding?

Qwen3.8 Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.5 versus 29.1 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Qwen1.5 4b Chat and Qwen3.8 Max share?

13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen1.5 4b Chat has 13 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.8 Max has 39.

Related comparisons

Go deeper