Qwen3.8 27B (Non-reasoning) vs Beam 1.0
Which is better for the money: Qwen3.8 27B (Non-reasoning) by Alibaba or Beam 1.0 by Reflection? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-25.
Clear winner
Verdict
Pick Beam 1.0
Beam 1.0 vs Qwen3.8 27B (Non-reasoning): 50.0% more intelligence, 84.2% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 45.4% faster end-to-end.
| Metric | Qwen3.8 27B (Non-reasoning) | Beam 1.0 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 20.2 | 30.3 | +50.0% Beam 1.0 is 50.0% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $2,022.49 | $318.73 | −84.2% Beam 1.0 is 84.2% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 14.26s | 7.79s | −45.4% Beam 1.0 is 45.4% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.50 / $3.00 | $0.40 / $1.20 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image, Video | Text |
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Qwen3.8 27B (Non-reasoning) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Max) scores 51.80 for $1082.
- Beam 1.0 is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores 46.30 for $207.
Qwen3.8 27B (Non-reasoning)Beam 1.0Today's Pareto frontierOpen-weights frontierEvery other model
Matchup
Compare something else
Agents:
Accept: text/markdown or ?format=md returns this page as Markdown. JSON: /api/v1/compare/qwen3-8-27b-non-reasoning/reflection-beam · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/qwen3-8-27b-non-reasoning/reflection-beam?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill