# GPT-4o mini vs Qwen3.8 Max

> Qwen3.8 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.0 to 25.4 on the Noometry Index. GPT-4o mini costs 11× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.8 Max's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/gpt-4o-mini-vs-qwen3-8-max
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 27

## Summary

- They share 27 benchmarks with published results for both. GPT-4o mini scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.8 Max in 10 categories; 10 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.8 Max leads 73.1 to 9.9.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 6.9% for GPT-4o mini and 100% for Qwen3.8 Max.
- GPT-4o mini is cheaper at $0.15 / $0.60 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $6 for Qwen3.8 Max.
- Qwen3.8 Max accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 128K.

## Snapshot

| | GPT-4o mini | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 25.4 | 56.0 |
| Rank | 337 | 21 |
| Context | 128K | 1M |
| Input $/M | $0.15 | $2 |
| Output $/M | $0.60 | $6 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |

## Coding

- GPT-4o mini: 21.6 (#330)
- Qwen3.8 Max: 52.3 (#30)

| Benchmark | GPT-4o mini | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1290 | 1499 |
| DeepSWE | — | 57.5% |
| Aider Polyglot | 3.6% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1671 |
| FrontierSWE | — | 15.8% |
| SciCode | — | 52.9% |
| WeirdML | 11.8% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 46.1% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 43.1% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 57.4% | — |
| HumanEval+ | 83.5% | — |
| MBPP+ | 72.2% | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- GPT-4o mini: 27.2 (#95)
- Qwen3.8 Max: 42.6 (#17)

| Benchmark | GPT-4o mini | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench Banking | — | 55.1% |
| BALROG | 17.4% | — |
| GDP.pdf | — | 23.2% |

## Reasoning

- GPT-4o mini: 8.7 (#343)
- Qwen3.8 Max: 53.4 (#26)

| Benchmark | GPT-4o mini | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | 40% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1267 | 1493 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 12% | 38% |
| DTBench | 54.4% | 92% |
| LMCA | 10.4% | 46.2% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 126.56 | 156.69 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 0% | — |
| SimpleBench | 10.7% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 28.8% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 88.3% |
| CritPt | — | 20% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 32.8% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 50% | — |
| LiveBench | 41.3% | — |
| PIQA | 88.7% | — |

## Math

- GPT-4o mini: 9.9 (#307)
- Qwen3.8 Max: 73.1 (#15)

| Benchmark | GPT-4o mini | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 0.7% | 74.7% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 6.9% | 100% |
| LMArena Math | 1267 | 1498 |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | — | 46.3% |
| ProofBench | — | 58% |
| Omni-MATH | 28% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 36.3% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 52.6% | — |
| GSM8K | 91.3% | — |

## Knowledge

- GPT-4o mini: 17.7 (#279)
- Qwen3.8 Max: 61.7 (#25)

| Benchmark | GPT-4o mini | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 37.7% | 92.7% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 8.3% | 47.3% |
| LMArena Expert | 1235 | 1504 |
| MMLU-Pro | 60.3% | — |
| Confabulations | 37.2% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 36.8% | — |
| BoolQ | 88.7% | — |
| MMLU | 81.8% | — |

## Multimodal

- GPT-4o mini: 25.3 (#117)
- Qwen3.8 Max: 36.9 (#70)

| Benchmark | GPT-4o mini | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1066 | 1314 |
| Video-MME | 64.8% | — |
| GeoBench | 64% | — |
| VPCT | 34% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | — | 20% |

## Multilingual

- GPT-4o mini: 42.2 (#194)
- Qwen3.8 Max: 56.6 (#18)

| Benchmark | GPT-4o mini | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1266 | 1468 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1264 | 1537 |
| LMArena French | 1296 | 1502 |
| LMArena German | 1272 | 1489 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1216 | 1466 |
| LMArena Korean | 1195 | 1467 |
| LMArena Russian | 1275 | 1478 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1276 | 1495 |

## Instruction Following

- GPT-4o mini: 62.1 (#234)
- Qwen3.8 Max: 77.7 (#19)

| Benchmark | GPT-4o mini | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1259 | 1478 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 56.8% | — |
| IFEval | 78.2% | — |

## Long Context

- GPT-4o mini: 39.1 (#181)
- Qwen3.8 Max: 45.5 (#30)

| Benchmark | GPT-4o mini | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1289 | 1486 |

## Writing & Preference

- GPT-4o mini: 39.7 (#243)
- Qwen3.8 Max: 67.0 (#31)

| Benchmark | GPT-4o mini | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1286 | 1480 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1268 | 1478 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1285 | 1487 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 67.2% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 873 | — |
| WildBench | 79.1% | — |
| LiveBench Language | 28.6% | — |

## FAQ

### Is GPT-4o mini better than Qwen3.8 Max?

Qwen3.8 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.0 to 25.4 on the Noometry Index. GPT-4o mini costs 11× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.8 Max's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, GPT-4o mini or Qwen3.8 Max?

GPT-4o mini is cheaper. It lists at $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.60 per million output tokens; Qwen3.8 Max lists at $2 and $6.

### Is GPT-4o mini or Qwen3.8 Max better for coding?

Qwen3.8 Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 52.3 versus 21.6 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.8 Max does, with 1M tokens against 128K.

### How many benchmarks do GPT-4o mini and Qwen3.8 Max share?

27 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-4o mini has 60 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.8 Max has 38.