Flint vs Qwen3.8 27B

Overall
21
vs
Overall
48

Qwen3.8 27B is clearly better. It wins 60 of the 72 test cases where they differ.

Learn to build evals like this in the AI Engineering Academy

Task by task

A score turns orange only when that model wins clearly more of the task's test cases. Under each score, the average time per test case on the machine it ran on. Flint spends 1.8× as many thinking tokens per test case.

Thinking tokensAnswer tokens
TaskAB
Overall
211m 17s
10.9K, 90% thinking5.9K, 91% thinking
4833.3s
Agents
1447.7s
4.8K, 85% thinking5.2K, 78% thinking
5736.6s
Structured Extraction
291m 17s
10.9K, 87% thinking4.6K, 92% thinking
7320.6s
Coding
141m 19s
12K, 98% thinking9.3K, 94% thinking
3753.0s
Grounded Answers
2957.7s
8.7K, 93% thinking4.2K, 91% thinking
6131.6s
Instruction Following
352m 28s
22.2K, 93% thinking6.9K, 93% thinking
6733.6s
Business Logic
101m 20s
11.7K, 78% thinking7.6K, 98% thinking
3632.9s
Security & permissions
3552.6s
7.1K, 90% thinking3.7K, 85% thinking
5122.6s
Diagnosis & investigation
057.0s
7.3K, 99% thinking5.9K, 85% thinking
040.0s

What you'd run

The build behind each score. Orange marks the faster, smaller, cheaper or longer-context side.

SpecAB
Speed
149 tok/s
196 tok/s (better)
Machine
Hosted
Hosted
Memory at 32K
—
—
Context
256K
256K
Cost per run
Not measured
$1.28
Cost per case
Not measured
$0.0083
Time per case
1m 17s
33.3s (better)
Quantization
BF16
FP8
Harness
openrouter
openrouter

The race

No lead changes

Each model's running score as the test cases go by. The dashed line is a perfect run.

FlintQwen3.8 27B
0255075100501001502148

Every test case

153 test cases

Each square is one test case, colored by the model that scored higher.

12 won by Flint60 won by Qwen3.8 27B81 tied