Qwen3.8 Flash vs Underdog Saluki 27B

Overall
32
vs
Overall
33

Too close to call. Underdog Saluki 27B wins 36 of the 64 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. Underdog Saluki 27B spends 1.8× as many thinking tokens per test case.

Thinking tokensAnswer tokens
TaskAB
Overall
3258.5s
4K, 81% thinking6.9K, 84% thinking
335m 15s
Agents
491m 25s
4.2K, 76% thinking11.8K, 97% thinking
409m 2s
Structured Extraction
3336.9s
3K, 90% thinking4.4K, 92% thinking
433m 17s
Coding
471m 21s
5.8K, 61% thinking9.2K, 49% thinking
166m 54s
Grounded Answers
2641.4s
3.1K, 90% thinking4.5K, 92% thinking
433m 22s
Instruction Following
371m 4s
5K, 89% thinking8K, 94% thinking
466m 5s
Business Logic
1746.8s
3.9K, 91% thinking5.2K, 81% thinking
333m 55s
Security & permissions
5054.1s
3.2K, 83% thinking4.9K, 91% thinking
433m 47s
Diagnosis & investigation
058.4s
3.3K, 73% thinking8.7K, 94% thinking
06m 39s

What you'd run

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

SpecAB
Speed
77 tok/s
23 tok/s
Machine
Hosted
Apple M5 Pro, 48 GB
Memory at 32K
—
10.2 GB
Context
1M (better)
256K
Cost per run
$0.46
Not measured
Cost per case
$0.003
Not measured
Time per case
58.5s (better)
5m 15s
Quantization
—
IQ2_XS
Harness
openrouter
llama.cpp

The race

6 lead changes

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

Qwen3.8 FlashUnderdog Saluki 27B
025507510050100150Perfect run3233

Every test case

153 test cases

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

28 won by Qwen3.8 Flash36 won by Underdog Saluki 27B89 tied