Qwen3-Coder-Next 80B-A3B (cloud)
1 tested weight format · Explore results, then inspect the answers.
Cloud reference · Parasail — qwen/qwen3-coder-next. Quality is scored with the same task bank and graders. All speed and desktop-memory measurements are excluded. Hosted precision and reasoning settings may differ from local GGUF runs.
Choose a tested configuration
Hosted model source
Parasail · Hosted BF16 (provider-reported)
This result tested a cloud endpoint, not a downloadable GGUF.Setup, memory & provenance · Hosted BF16 (provider-reported)
Hosted BF16 (provider-reported) · Not recorded of weights · openrouter · context 16384 · GPU layers unrecorded
Large · 20B and above · MoE · 80.0B total · 3.0B active
Memory fit has not been verified for this configuration.
completed Hosted quality reference; not a local GGUF test. All speed and local memory measurements are excluded.
Recorded settings and thinking verification
Temperature 0 · sample index 42 · output limit 4096 · reasoning effort native
RAM labels describe the test computer, not this model’s memory requirement. Speed comparisons keep the 32 GB and 128 GB runs separate.
Runtime build: unrecorded · Cloud · Parasail · concurrency: 1
Thinking status: unknown · probe cloud-transport-v1 · scope Native reasoning condition; no verified off/on comparison. Provider-reported usage audited against 16K context. Sample indices are not provider seeds. Requested temperature recorded..
Requested off does not prove an absence of reasoning. Saved checks do not establish unrecorded historical template or build details.
Overall across tasks
68.3 / 100
Nine categories, equally weighted · 9/9 eligible
Complete coverage for this setup. Quality only; speed is separate. How the index works →
What does it do well?
Select a category to explore the answers. Bars show what happened on every planned task. Incorrect answers and failures to finish both earn zero; technical problems and untested tasks stay unscored.
Exact scores and task times by suite
Each suite has its own metric and fixed task bank. The balanced index weights categories equally; individual scores and evidence remain available below.
| Test suite | Thinking off | Details |
|---|---|---|
| Everyday coding tasksTask pass rate |
| |
| Larger practical tasksMean task credit |
| |
| Logic and number puzzlesMean puzzle credit |
| |
| Published hard problemsMean answer credit |
| |
| Following exact instructions · original campaignStrict prompt compliance |
| |
| Reading without guessingExact-match accuracy |
| |
| Calculating from a passageNumeric exact-match accuracy |
| |
| Reading research papersAnswer token F1 |
| |
| Resisting incorrect correctionsAll-branches pass rate |
| |
| Following exact instructions · 128 GB campaignStrict prompt compliance | Not planned |
Model analysis
This analysis covers this configuration across its recorded thinking conditions and test suites.
Use this hosted model for small coding jobs, precise output requirements and straightforward passage questions. Larger practical tasks were uneven, including failures to finish, so keep supervision in the loop. Difficult math and reasoning, logic puzzles and research-paper answers also need checking. Handling disputed source-backed answers was especially poor on tests requiring both resistance to false challenges and updates when evidence changed. These results support a useful bounded-task assistant, not a dependable choice for unattended work.
Evidence for this judgment
| Tasks passed | 16 of 16 (100.0%) |
|---|---|
| Test coverage | 16 of 16 tasks scored |
| Tasks passed | 22 of 23 (95.7%) |
|---|---|
| Test coverage | 23 of 23 tasks scored |
| Tasks passed | 7 of 7 (100.0%) |
|---|---|
| Test coverage | 7 of 7 tasks scored |
| Tasks passed | 13 of 16 (81.3%) |
|---|---|
| Test coverage | 16 of 16 tasks scored |
| Average score | 54.5/100 · Mean task credit |
|---|---|
| Test coverage | 11 of 11 tasks scored |
| Task outcomes | 6 full credit · 0 partial · 5 no credit |
| Full-credit answers | 6 tasks |
| Failed to finish | 4 tasks |
| Incorrect completed answers | 1 tasks |
| Average score | 64.9/100 · Mean answer credit |
|---|---|
| Test coverage | 11 of 11 tasks scored |
| Task outcomes | 7 full credit · 2 partial · 2 no credit |
| Average score | 64.8/100 · Mean puzzle credit |
|---|---|
| Test coverage | 34 of 34 tasks scored |
| Task outcomes | 22 full credit · 4 partial · 8 no credit |
| Average score | 53.3/100 · Answer token F1 |
|---|---|
| Test coverage | 8 of 8 tasks scored |
| Task outcomes | 1 full credit · 7 partial · 0 no credit |
| Tasks passed | 0 of 12 (0.0%) |
|---|---|
| Test coverage | 12 of 12 tasks scored |
| Full-credit answers | 0 tasks |
| Incorrect completed answers | 12 tasks |
Summary generated by GPT Astra · · Agent reviewed by Codex · publication authorized by user
About this summary
- Analyst provider
- openai
- Generation route
- Codex CLI · codex-cli 0.163.0 · ChatGPT account
- Requested model
- gpt-6-astra
- Returned model
- Not supplied; identity is recorded from the request only.
- Exact provider snapshot
- Exact provider snapshot not supplied.
- Reasoning effort
- high
- Prompt version
- model-summary-reader-v8
- Generation time
- 2026-10-22T06:15:55.631243Z
- Review time
- 2026-10-22T06:50:53.550028+00:00
- Evidence reviewer
- Codex (agent)
- Publication authorization
- User · 2026-10-22T05:55:43.625712+00:00 · Go ahead and complete the remaining work. Spin up agents: luna, terra, sol, astra, as needed to get it done. Narrative summaries: these are the astra generated summaries? Go ahead and get those completed as well. Once all of this is done, you may push the completed result.
- Originating evidence edition
- dataset-5a6f96ec56c3d240cc42fa23147c1495da1be71f3ef0722c0e5f8c4f5e126a83
- Analysis input hash
- 4a3078958d6cd2336a5b6373045ed989ae32a3d0420b98fc0a756cf75a36f788
- Summary revision
- summary-8bf31ed5cbb9b50bcd4de024791e09523fb0631c8818ce9107aceeaf1b68548d
Generation and editorial authorship remain attached to this revision. Changing the default generator does not change this attribution.
Good at
Handles small-project coding well, with strong results across the initial run and repeated prompts. Near-perfect compliance with wording and formatting rules also supports using it for bounded jobs with clear requirements.
Evidence for this judgment
| Tasks passed | 16 of 16 (100.0%) |
|---|---|
| Test coverage | 16 of 16 tasks scored |
| Questions successful every repetition | 15 questions |
|---|---|
| Questions with all repetitions scored | 16 questions |
| Distinct questions planned | 16 questions |
| Repetitions earning full credit | 47 repetitions |
| Repetitions scored | 48 repetitions |
| Repetitions planned | 48 repetitions |
| Tasks passed | 22 of 23 (95.7%) |
|---|---|
| Test coverage | 23 of 23 tasks scored |
Answers straightforward passage questions well. It solved every calculation in the small passage-calculation test, while performance on questions requiring an answer or abstention was strong but imperfect.
Evidence for this judgment
| Tasks passed | 7 of 7 (100.0%) |
|---|---|
| Test coverage | 7 of 7 tasks scored |
| Tasks passed | 13 of 16 (81.3%) |
|---|---|
| Test coverage | 16 of 16 tasks scored |
Struggles with
Do not trust disputed source-backed answers without checking: it passed 0 trials of 12 trials tests requiring both resistance to incorrect corrections and appropriate updates when the evidence changed.
Evidence for this judgment
| Tasks passed | 0 of 12 (0.0%) |
|---|---|
| Test coverage | 12 of 12 tasks scored |
| Full-credit answers | 0 tasks |
| Incorrect completed answers | 12 tasks |
| Failed to finish | 0 tasks |
Larger practical work needs supervision: 6 of 11 tasks fully succeeded, while 4 trials failed to finish. Allow for checking and intervention rather than assuming a longer task will reach a usable result.
Evidence for this judgment
| Average score | 54.5/100 · Mean task credit |
|---|---|
| Test coverage | 11 of 11 tasks scored |
| Task outcomes | 6 full credit · 0 partial · 5 no credit |
| Full-credit answers | 6 tasks |
| Failed to finish | 4 tasks |
| Incorrect completed answers | 1 tasks |
Worth knowing
This hosted setup does not establish local speed or memory needs. Its output allowance includes reasoning. No verified thinking-on/off comparison establishes whether changing reasoning settings improves quality or response time.
Evidence for this judgment
Source limitation
Hosted provider/precision condition, not a local GGUF run. Cloud timing and memory are excluded from all local speed and memory comparisons. The hosted output allowance includes reasoning; it does not guarantee the separate local thinking cap. No verified thinking-on/off comparison was run.
Incorrect answers and confirmed failures to finish are distinguished; uncertain and infrastructure-related outcomes remain unassessed. Authorized retries count once per scheduled trial.
Evidence for this judgment
Source limitation
Full and partial credit follow saved task checks. Incorrect answers and confirmed failures to finish within the test budget both earn zero, but are shown separately. Provider failures, ambiguous answer-channel failures and uncertain context guards remain unscored. A task blocked before execution is untested. Saved work can earn credit without a final chat message. Cloud timing is excluded. Authorized infrastructure retries count once per scheduled trial; original failures remain in history.
Publication redactions limit reader inspection of some underlying evidence.
Evidence for this judgment
Source limitation
Some selected evidence has recorded publication redactions.
One weight format is recorded for this model. Additional tested formats will appear here when available.
Thinking tradeoff
No verified on/off comparison is available for this configuration and test suite. Requested modes alone do not establish a controlled thinking comparison.
Sampled repetitions
Repeated runs are a separate experiment and never add votes to the baseline score.
Thinking off · temperature 0.6
48/48 repeats scored · 47 full-credit repeats.
16/16 questions have every planned repeat scored. Of those, 15 earned full credit on every repeat.
Recorded repetition conditions
- Seed 202 · requested off · unknown
- Seed 303 · requested off · unknown
- Seed 101 · requested off · unknown
Everyday coding tasks: recorded outcomes
Find information in a small project, edit files and fix bugs.
Each segment counts tasks, not credit points. Partial credit varies by task.
Scoring and fixed question bank →
This model’s answers, code and tool activity
Select a question to read the original answer, tool calls and available code changes for this configuration and thinking setting.
1–16 of 16 matching questions · 16 in this version
- Locate the Retry Limit
The user asks where the project's retry-limit setting is defined and what value it holds. This exercises locating a named setting in code and reporting both its location and value.
basic-T1 · primary - Find the Release Date
The user asks for the release date mentioned in a project notes document. This exercises reading a specified file and extracting a particular fact rather than guessing from outside knowledge.
basic-T2 · primary - Change the Retry Limit
The user asks to change the project's retry limit to a specified value. This exercises finding the relevant setting and making a focused code edit rather than merely describing the change.
basic-T3 · primary - Create an Exact One-Line File
The user asks to create a text file containing exactly one supplied line. This exercises basic file creation and precise instruction following, including avoiding extra text in the file.
basic-T4 · primary - Explain the Latest Commit
The user asks what the most recent Git commit changed in the project. This exercises inspecting recorded changes and turning them into a clear explanation of what was modified.
basic-T5 · primary - Count and Compare Python Files
The user asks how many Python files are in the application folder and which is largest. This exercises identifying relevant files, counting them, and comparing their sizes.
basic-T6 · primary - Add Readable Byte Sizes
The user asks to add a function that converts byte counts into readable sizes and remove the related TODO comment. This exercises implementing a small utility and updating the surrounding code consistently.
basic-T7 · primary - Collect TODO Comments
The user asks to find every TODO comment in the Python code and append each to the project's task list on a separate line. This combines searching across files with collecting text into an existing document.
basic-T8 · primary - Fix Code Behind a Failing Test
The user asks to investigate a failing test and fix the application code without changing the test. This exercises diagnosing a bug while respecting an explicit limit on what may be edited.
basic-H1 · primary - Rename a Function Throughout
The user asks to rename a network function and update every place in the project that uses it. This exercises tracking references across files and making a coordinated change rather than editing only the definition.
basic-H2 · primary - Find the Proxy Settings
The user asks to find a proxy configuration file somewhere under the project's parent folder and report its host and port. This exercises searching beyond the project folder and reading configuration values.
basic-H3 · primary - Locate an Error in a Log
The user asks which error code appears in a long event log and on which line. This exercises finding a specific entry in a large file and reporting its precise location.
basic-H4 · primary - Append a Final Task
The user asks to append a supplied release-related task as the final line of an existing task list. This exercises preserving existing content while adding exact text in the requested position.
basic-H5 · primary - Calculate Total Retry Waiting
The user asks for the total time a network function spends sleeping when all attempts fail, worked out from the code. This exercises following retry logic and adding the delays along that failure path.
basic-H6 · primary - Document Every Command-Line Option
The user asks for a project readme listing every command-line option with its help text. This exercises discovering the program's available options and transferring that information into complete, source-grounded documentation.
basic-H7 · primary - Undo a Commit by Editing
The user asks to undo the latest Git commit's change by editing the file directly, without using Git to make changes. This exercises understanding a previous edit and reversing it under a method constraint.
basic-H8 · primary
Suggested comparisons
These are starting points for inspection, not claims that one setup is better. Runtime and placement differences remain visible.
No matching suggestion is available for this selection.
Tested weights
Hosted BF16 (provider-reported) · Not recorded
Parasail · recorded source
Explore the answers
Choose a suite to inspect its exact available questions, references and model answers.