Noometry

Model comparison

Qwen3.8 27B vs Solar Pro4

Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.0 to 42.1 on the Noometry Index. Solar Pro4 costs 2.1× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.8 27B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.

Qwen3.8 27B Alibaba (Qwen)

46.0

Rank #68 Confirmed

Solar Pro4 Upstage

42.1

Rank #121 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen3.8 27B scores higher in 7 categories and Solar Pro4 in 1 category; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen3.8 27B leads 41.0 to 28.5.
  • Solar Pro4 is cheaper at $0.30 / $1.20 per million input/output tokens, against $0.99 / $1.49 for Qwen3.8 27B.
  • Solar Pro4 accepts more context: 524K tokens versus 262K.
  • Qwen3.8 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Qwen3.8 27BSolar Pro4
ProviderAlibaba (Qwen)Upstage
Noometry Index46.042.1
Released2026-08-142026-08-06
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window262K524K
Max output33K131K
Input $ / M tokens$0.99$0.30
Output $ / M tokens$1.49$1.20
Results tracked3118

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.8 27B leads

Qwen3.8 27B: 50.5 (#44), Solar Pro4: 40.1 (#149)

BenchmarkQwen3.8 27BSolar Pro4
LMArena WebDev15931371
LMArena Coding14821437
SciCode46.6%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Qwen3.8 27B: 32.9 (#57), Solar Pro4: —

BenchmarkQwen3.8 27BSolar Pro4
APEX-Agents47.5%—

Reasoning Qwen3.8 27B leads

Qwen3.8 27B: 41.0 (#54), Solar Pro4: 28.5 (#104)

BenchmarkQwen3.8 27BSolar Pro4
LMArena Hard Prompts14601399
ARC-AGI-242.4%—
NYT Connections (extended)54.5%—
ARC-AGI-187.5%—
CritPt5.4%—
DTBench88%—
LMCA41.4%—
Surface Evolver Bench45%—
Epoch Capabilities Index149.38—

Math Solar Pro4 leads

Qwen3.8 27B: 37.1 (#161), Solar Pro4: 38.8 (#128)

BenchmarkQwen3.8 27BSolar Pro4
LMArena Math14561416
ProofBench16%—

Knowledge Qwen3.8 27B leads

Qwen3.8 27B: 41.6 (#109), Solar Pro4: 39.8 (#129)

BenchmarkQwen3.8 27BSolar Pro4
LMArena Expert14821427

Multimodal Not comparable

Qwen3.8 27B: 41.3 (#37), Solar Pro4: —

BenchmarkQwen3.8 27BSolar Pro4
LMArena Vision1271—

Multilingual Qwen3.8 27B leads

Qwen3.8 27B: 53.7 (#60), Solar Pro4: 48.7 (#139)

BenchmarkQwen3.8 27BSolar Pro4
LMArena Non-English14301361
LMArena Chinese15041415
LMArena French14651397
LMArena German14381364
LMArena Japanese13841309
LMArena Korean13931382
LMArena Russian14151360
LMArena Spanish14481401

Instruction Following Qwen3.8 27B leads

Qwen3.8 27B: 75.8 (#53), Solar Pro4: 72.7 (#132)

BenchmarkQwen3.8 27BSolar Pro4
LMArena Instruction Following14391377

Long Context Qwen3.8 27B leads

Qwen3.8 27B: 44.3 (#70), Solar Pro4: 42.1 (#130)

BenchmarkQwen3.8 27BSolar Pro4
LMArena Longer Query14501381

Writing & Preference Qwen3.8 27B leads

Qwen3.8 27B: 65.8 (#43), Solar Pro4: 56.5 (#138)

BenchmarkQwen3.8 27BSolar Pro4
LMArena Text14411386
LMArena Creative Writing13841316
LMArena Multi-Turn14411385
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1671—

Frequently asked questions

Is Qwen3.8 27B better than Solar Pro4?

Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.0 to 42.1 on the Noometry Index. Solar Pro4 costs 2.1× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.8 27B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Qwen3.8 27B or Solar Pro4?

Solar Pro4 is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $1.20 per million output tokens; Qwen3.8 27B lists at $0.99 and $1.49.

Is Qwen3.8 27B or Solar Pro4 better for coding?

Qwen3.8 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.5 versus 40.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Solar Pro4 does, with 524K tokens against 262K.

How many benchmarks do Qwen3.8 27B and Solar Pro4 share?

18 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen3.8 27B has 31 scored results on Noometry and Solar Pro4 has 18.

Related comparisons

Go deeper