Qwen3.8 27B vs Spark X2.6 4B

Overall
48
vs
Overall
15

Qwen3.8 27B is clearly better. It wins 76 of the 84 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. Spark X2.6 4B spends 1.3× as many thinking tokens per test case.

Thinking tokensAnswer tokens
TaskAB
Overall
4833.3s
5.9K, 91% thinking8.2K, 84% thinking
151m 3s
Agents
5736.6s
5.2K, 78% thinking11.5K, 97% thinking
141m 32s
Structured Extraction
7320.6s
4.6K, 92% thinking5.3K, 78% thinking
1039.5s
Coding
3753.0s
9.3K, 94% thinking9.1K, 48% thinking
41m 8s
Grounded Answers
6131.6s
4.2K, 91% thinking6.6K, 86% thinking
1050.2s
Instruction Following
6733.6s
6.9K, 93% thinking11.9K, 90% thinking
371m 29s
Business Logic
3632.9s
7.6K, 98% thinking4.9K, 86% thinking
1036.3s
Security & permissions
5122.6s
3.7K, 85% thinking7K, 94% thinking
3154.3s
Diagnosis & investigation
040.0s
5.9K, 85% thinking11.6K, 98% thinking
01m 30s

What you'd run

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

SpecAB
Speed
196 tok/s
136 tok/s
Machine
Hosted
RTX 5090, 32 GB
Memory at 32K
—
9.4 GB
Context
256K
605K (better)
Cost per run
$1.28 (better)
$1.61 est.
Cost per case
$0.0083 (better)
$0.011 est.
Time per case
33.3s (better)
1m 3s
Quantization
FP8
BF16
Harness
openrouter
llama.cpp

The race

No lead changes

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

Qwen3.8 27BSpark X2.6 4B
0255075100501001504815

Every test case

153 test cases

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

76 won by Qwen3.8 27B8 won by Spark X2.6 4B69 tied