Mellum2.1 Thinking vs Qwen3.8 Flash

Overall
9
vs
Overall
32

Qwen3.8 Flash is clearly better. It wins 55 of the 60 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. Mellum2.1 Thinking spends 2.0× as many thinking tokens per test case.

Thinking tokensAnswer tokens
TaskAB
Overall
91m 56s
10.3K, 63% thinking4K, 81% thinking
3258.5s
Agents
92m 3s
10.8K, 93% thinking4.2K, 76% thinking
491m 25s
Structured Extraction
51m 36s
8.3K, 51% thinking3K, 90% thinking
3336.9s
Coding
52m 11s
11.3K, 38% thinking5.8K, 61% thinking
471m 21s
Grounded Answers
131m 24s
7.3K, 62% thinking3.1K, 90% thinking
2641.4s
Instruction Following
283m 10s
17.3K, 63% thinking5K, 89% thinking
371m 4s
Business Logic
01m 39s
9K, 50% thinking3.9K, 91% thinking
1746.8s
Security & permissions
81m 40s
9.1K, 75% thinking3.2K, 83% thinking
5054.1s
Diagnosis & investigation
01m 15s
6.8K, 98% thinking3.3K, 73% thinking
058.4s

What you'd run

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

SpecAB
Speed
90 tok/s
77 tok/s
Machine
Apple M5 Pro, 48 GB
Hosted
Memory at 32K
12.9 GB
—
Context
128K
1M (better)
Cost per run
$2.46 est.
$0.46 (better)
Cost per case
$0.016 est.
$0.003 (better)
Time per case
1m 56s
58.5s (better)
Quantization
Q8_0
—
Harness
llama.cpp
openrouter

The race

No lead changes

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

Mellum2.1 ThinkingQwen3.8 Flash
025507510050100150Perfect run932

Every test case

153 test cases

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

5 won by Mellum2.1 Thinking55 won by Qwen3.8 Flash93 tied