AgentBench / results
← All models

Qwen3.8 Flash-Next (IQ3_XXS)

1 tested weight format · Explore results, then inspect the answers.

Choose a tested configuration

Get this tested model

IQ3_XXS · 75.84 GB download · 2 files required

Links follow the selected quant and configuration.

Setup, memory & provenance · IQ3_XXS

IQ3_XXS · 75.84 GB of weights · vulkan11260 · context 16384 · GPU layers 99

Large · 20B and above · MoE · 176.9B total · Active parameter count not recorded

Memory fit has not been verified for this configuration.

completed

Recorded settings and thinking verification

Temperature 0 · seed 42 · output limit 4096 · reasoning effort unrecorded

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 · Local · test machine with 32 GB RAM · concurrency: 1

Thinking status: verified · probe 2 · scope Saved profile-level probe; exact historical template/build scope is not fully recorded..

Requested off does not prove an absence of reasoning. Saved checks do not establish unrecorded historical template or build details.

Overall across tasks

80.4 / 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 suiteThinking offDetails
Everyday coding tasksTask pass rate
Pass rate
16/16 · 100%
Answers completed
16/16 · 100%
Correct / completed
16/16 · 100%
16 full credit
16/16 scored171.8s median task time · 16 measured
Larger practical tasksMean task credit
Average credit
63.6%
Full-credit rate
7/11 · 64%
Answers completed
9/11 · 82%
Full credit / completed
7/9 · 78%
7 full credit2 incorrect2 failed to finish
11/11 scored915.7s median task time · 11 measured
Logic and number puzzlesMean puzzle credit
Average credit
70.6%
Full-credit rate
24/34 · 71%
Answers completed
34/34 · 100%
Full credit / completed
24/34 · 71%
24 full credit1 partial credit9 incorrect
34/34 scored370.7s median task time · 34 measured
Published hard problemsMean answer credit
Average credit
73.9%
Full-credit rate
8/11 · 73%
Answers completed
11/11 · 100%
Full credit / completed
8/11 · 73%
8 full credit2 partial credit1 incorrect
11/11 scored445.8s median task time · 11 measured
Following exact instructions · original campaignStrict prompt compliance
Pass rate
17/23 · 74%
Answers completed
23/23 · 100%
Correct / completed
17/23 · 74%
17 full credit6 incorrect
23/23 scored47.8s median task time · 23 measured
Reading without guessingExact-match accuracy
Pass rate
15/16 · 94%
Answers completed
16/16 · 100%
Correct / completed
15/16 · 94%
15 full credit1 incorrect
16/16 scored12.5s median task time · 16 measured
Calculating from a passageNumeric exact-match accuracy
Pass rate
7/7 · 100%
Answers completed
7/7 · 100%
Correct / completed
7/7 · 100%
7 full credit
7/7 scored12.6s median task time · 7 measured
Reading research papersAnswer token F1
Average credit
64.4%
Full-credit rate
1/8 · 13%
Answers completed
8/8 · 100%
Full credit / completed
1/8 · 13%
1 full credit7 partial credit
8/8 scored80.5s median task time · 8 measured
Resisting incorrect correctionsAll-branches pass rate
Pass rate
10/12 · 83%
Answers completed
12/12 · 100%
Correct / completed
10/12 · 83%
10 full credit2 incorrect
12/12 scored22.0s median task time · 12 measured
Following exact instructions · 128 GB campaignStrict prompt complianceNot planned

Model analysis

This analysis covers this configuration across its recorded thinking conditions and test suites.

Use this configuration for small-project coding and, with thinking enabled, demanding reasoning or tightly specified answers. It handled those tests well, but longer jobs with tools remained uneven and thinking-on research-paper answers need scrutiny. Small coding tasks took a median 171.8 seconds without thinking in these runs, so allow for that wait. Check results before relying on it for unattended work.

Evidence for this judgment
Everyday coding tasks · Thinking off
Tasks passed16 of 16 (100.0%)
Test coverage16 of 16 tasks scored
Typical time per task (median)171.8 seconds
Tasks timed16 tasks
Explore these test results →

View this model’s answers, code and tool activity →

Published hard problems · Thinking on
Average score88.3/100 · Mean answer credit
Test coverage11 of 11 tasks scored
Task outcomes8 full credit · 3 partial · 0 no credit
Explore these test results →

View this model’s answers, code and tool activity →

Logic and number puzzles · Thinking on
Average score85.3/100 · Mean puzzle credit
Test coverage34 of 34 tasks scored
Task outcomes29 full credit · 0 partial · 5 no credit
Explore these test results →

View this model’s answers, code and tool activity →

Following exact instructions · Thinking on
Tasks passed22 of 23 (95.7%)
Test coverage23 of 23 tasks scored
Explore these test results →

View this model’s answers, code and tool activity →

Larger practical tasks · Thinking on
Average score63.6/100 · Mean task credit
Test coverage11 of 11 tasks scored
Task outcomes7 full credit · 0 partial · 4 no credit
Explore these test results →

View this model’s answers, code and tool activity →

Reading research papers · Thinking on
Average score36.8/100 · Answer token F1
Test coverage8 of 8 tasks scored
Task outcomes0 full credit · 8 partial · 0 no credit
Explore these test results →

View this model’s answers, code and tool activity →

Original analysis generated by GPT Astra · · Edited by Codex; agent reviewed by Codex · publication authorized by user

About this summary

Codex reviewed this assessment against a newer evidence edition. The original analyst, generation date and source draft remain recorded separately from the editorial revision.

Analyst provider
openai
Generation route
Codex CLI · codex-cli 0.162.1 · 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-v7
Generation time
2026-10-14T01:36:37.360992Z
Review time
2026-10-22T05:56:50.662155+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-a241e6726b39b4e5b1cf99f9801c22ddffdd62a6885206d83da8ab42772579ef
Analysis input hash
ff0824869f9d1830870e1e2b2dddbfa82b10af59bd3146d63d2ddcf55367bb60
Original analysis input hash
7d6828cf5d24dc47dee103c1920566611eed33f6cfbc962d26a4bd84bce84ea3
Editorial evidence edition
dataset-5a6f96ec56c3d240cc42fa23147c1495da1be71f3ef0722c0e5f8c4f5e126a83
Original summary
summary-0e29e7e5e351441ca8241fecad8fd95365cc92f2382fc6ae6120bfca9a587d01
Summary revision
summary-c4e3b58431b988656cb9e12696344e6e4d5f728c991f19d884375a9aa670aaf6

Generation and editorial authorship remain attached to this revision. Changing the default generator does not change this attribution.

Contributing analyses (18)
  • GPT Astra ·
    Analysis stage
    suite_synthesis
    Requested / returned model
    gpt-6-astra / Not supplied
    Exact provider snapshot
    Exact provider snapshot not supplied.
    Reasoning effort
    high
    Prompt version
    model-summary-v3
    Analysis input hash
    2c7717b144a6614bb94f986d920a4f6760f685581751b102b0fb024a3f4299e5
    Summary revision
    summary-0fd33e09606c6fefc94cac887c5ceef6a058c5b395494b41b1a4338c0298ccca
    Input summary revisions
    summary-2fee2685287e4e0627c3e4dbec99f39745e8b1b98fcde7990b3a7106f096445e, summary-518d4698144df3b7335a34b335191d280735724479049247c7d2ad03aa8b825d, summary-5404077b28c7e41a21f4db35f3fde71f0314fd1a62a33a3afc2dffdf82d5a64d, summary-5da9f1c0262e6d0882743a335020da06981cac92a68511aa8e6f79854a49ab26, summary-633982e3072bfc41709b1567a901e4419e91031fe27af8e06dc21ffc0af06876, summary-646e85153c24805bf1e7e8624acad75fb73b45d59018df7b1932406436ff8b96, summary-90918343b42e5eb20565f7942f5f96fc7db06fcece5a35ff6d0db89dc36f15ff, summary-a76c6c72e3ca21d076ac6f806b909b0a5cb1dd51760acc9127949e92bddf0194
  • GPT Astra ·
    Analysis stage
    suite_analysis
    Requested / returned model
    gpt-6-astra / Not supplied
    Exact provider snapshot
    Exact provider snapshot not supplied.
    Reasoning effort
    high
    Prompt version
    model-summary-v3
    Analysis input hash
    d1f75f3753b6f3333ac8db370cb502dc15b9813c3fd7ae3dc523d67a24fcfdd7
    Summary revision
    summary-1530131fa7777cc8740f52b9bac4652f824d73495603a68f8d159a750df444b4
    Input summary revisions
    Direct evidence analysis
  • GPT Astra ·
    Analysis stage
    evidence_segment
    Requested / returned model
    gpt-6-astra / Not supplied
    Exact provider snapshot
    Exact provider snapshot not supplied.
    Reasoning effort
    high
    Prompt version
    model-summary-v3
    Analysis input hash
    2c9bba8402b21253475494ec3017d37ff3726733849e7c4f6edf58a7082686db
    Summary revision
    summary-2fee2685287e4e0627c3e4dbec99f39745e8b1b98fcde7990b3a7106f096445e
    Input summary revisions
    Direct evidence analysis
  • GPT Astra ·
    Analysis stage
    suite_analysis
    Requested / returned model
    gpt-6-astra / Not supplied
    Exact provider snapshot
    Exact provider snapshot not supplied.
    Reasoning effort
    high
    Prompt version
    model-summary-v3
    Analysis input hash
    466c0776bc8a156d7fbb9527f146f28dda36bb13ca7a2dd9dbaaad31b0c4afa6
    Summary revision
    summary-3a2e3550934e9651f73955a0bd50d87672a340b2051bea44cf51e552b19a3b23
    Input summary revisions
    Direct evidence analysis
  • GPT Astra ·
    Analysis stage
    suite_analysis
    Requested / returned model
    gpt-6-astra / Not supplied
    Exact provider snapshot
    Exact provider snapshot not supplied.
    Reasoning effort
    high
    Prompt version
    model-summary-v3
    Analysis input hash
    11c9b4ed843bd6c6b8098885e58fb0084eed36702f9ed3201463eb23d779cb58
    Summary revision
    summary-3bae3bd4cdda3c23d0b994ac58ad3066cd793ab02a5de9f51962d627395b7905
    Input summary revisions
    Direct evidence analysis
  • GPT Astra ·
    Analysis stage
    evidence_segment
    Requested / returned model
    gpt-6-astra / Not supplied
    Exact provider snapshot
    Exact provider snapshot not supplied.
    Reasoning effort
    high
    Prompt version
    model-summary-v3
    Analysis input hash
    2a1b06e311ef2a6c155c2a3c37528fe3b740b19f8383fdda57126ced1df7d0ef
    Summary revision
    summary-518d4698144df3b7335a34b335191d280735724479049247c7d2ad03aa8b825d
    Input summary revisions
    Direct evidence analysis
  • GPT Astra ·
    Analysis stage
    suite_analysis
    Requested / returned model
    gpt-6-astra / Not supplied
    Exact provider snapshot
    Exact provider snapshot not supplied.
    Reasoning effort
    high
    Prompt version
    model-summary-v3
    Analysis input hash
    ba1934d18ac12f49191f86e2e90500dca7d363abd98115aa35e3bbc3f3a1bfbd
    Summary revision
    summary-532235373df8a6ab3816956a6f1a7e5c325592ce5546dfd8e74d2012e00dfd2a
    Input summary revisions
    Direct evidence analysis
  • GPT Astra ·
    Analysis stage
    evidence_segment
    Requested / returned model
    gpt-6-astra / Not supplied
    Exact provider snapshot
    Exact provider snapshot not supplied.
    Reasoning effort
    high
    Prompt version
    model-summary-v3
    Analysis input hash
    6920799531778159b96f0eb2100fda5dd95b10914532ff0c630c3defbfb26d22
    Summary revision
    summary-5404077b28c7e41a21f4db35f3fde71f0314fd1a62a33a3afc2dffdf82d5a64d
    Input summary revisions
    Direct evidence analysis
  • GPT Astra ·
    Analysis stage
    suite_analysis
    Requested / returned model
    gpt-6-astra / Not supplied
    Exact provider snapshot
    Exact provider snapshot not supplied.
    Reasoning effort
    high
    Prompt version
    model-summary-v3
    Analysis input hash
    003c4b91641555cff4766db634c42ae1277fd3c1ac3eaa54abebbfd9a85604e6
    Summary revision
    summary-551ac8d5a6060755141fdf8faafcb48c8f0fd8ddeba7027796b7c48cc8b750a9
    Input summary revisions
    Direct evidence analysis
  • GPT Astra ·
    Analysis stage
    evidence_segment
    Requested / returned model
    gpt-6-astra / Not supplied
    Exact provider snapshot
    Exact provider snapshot not supplied.
    Reasoning effort
    high
    Prompt version
    model-summary-v3
    Analysis input hash
    fc4d9d4a5939c40dc1884973e3696328c0764cab8cd9aee1a6ed489b871d8ed0
    Summary revision
    summary-5da9f1c0262e6d0882743a335020da06981cac92a68511aa8e6f79854a49ab26
    Input summary revisions
    Direct evidence analysis
  • GPT Astra ·
    Analysis stage
    example_analysis
    Requested / returned model
    gpt-6-astra / Not supplied
    Exact provider snapshot
    Exact provider snapshot not supplied.
    Reasoning effort
    high
    Prompt version
    model-summary-v3
    Analysis input hash
    bdbdceca0038bf0bf5d3a03c64ba2453f84f15e5f7db755e9523e03d5597fbff
    Summary revision
    summary-633982e3072bfc41709b1567a901e4419e91031fe27af8e06dc21ffc0af06876
    Input summary revisions
    Direct evidence analysis
  • GPT Astra ·
    Analysis stage
    evidence_segment
    Requested / returned model
    gpt-6-astra / Not supplied
    Exact provider snapshot
    Exact provider snapshot not supplied.
    Reasoning effort
    high
    Prompt version
    model-summary-v3
    Analysis input hash
    c8cf7edf8399fe33fbc6c409016e903d75d71d331306dde58a26a41d6b63c849
    Summary revision
    summary-646e85153c24805bf1e7e8624acad75fb73b45d59018df7b1932406436ff8b96
    Input summary revisions
    Direct evidence analysis
  • GPT Astra ·
    Analysis stage
    subject_synthesis
    Requested / returned model
    gpt-6-astra / Not supplied
    Exact provider snapshot
    Exact provider snapshot not supplied.
    Reasoning effort
    high
    Prompt version
    model-summary-v3
    Analysis input hash
    5c942ce349076eea7680c35419fbe948d934597cc0fc27e201a8123aa57ed073
    Summary revision
    summary-70b4d9911ee025b709ea62c3705b9cd19e42ef7aa09c04775ee7efc0648db950
    Input summary revisions
    summary-0fd33e09606c6fefc94cac887c5ceef6a058c5b395494b41b1a4338c0298ccca, summary-1530131fa7777cc8740f52b9bac4652f824d73495603a68f8d159a750df444b4, summary-3a2e3550934e9651f73955a0bd50d87672a340b2051bea44cf51e552b19a3b23, summary-3bae3bd4cdda3c23d0b994ac58ad3066cd793ab02a5de9f51962d627395b7905, summary-532235373df8a6ab3816956a6f1a7e5c325592ce5546dfd8e74d2012e00dfd2a, summary-551ac8d5a6060755141fdf8faafcb48c8f0fd8ddeba7027796b7c48cc8b750a9, summary-71c1f467fcff66bc43f387dc4b44357520fd316ffd616c473767472da1af3ab9, summary-d0ab8df9e34656671880eb0dfaac22390cc750e559e39dcd51c9e3085bd7d70e, summary-db89ab66b61af6c49f9461e6f43cb1795f0eaffdbe4b1417f7cc5032de23d1bf
  • GPT Astra ·
    Analysis stage
    suite_analysis
    Requested / returned model
    gpt-6-astra / Not supplied
    Exact provider snapshot
    Exact provider snapshot not supplied.
    Reasoning effort
    high
    Prompt version
    model-summary-v3
    Analysis input hash
    61d87486b7f537330cad745381862c9deb6b54697f245216fc8a8ddcd24c5eb6
    Summary revision
    summary-71c1f467fcff66bc43f387dc4b44357520fd316ffd616c473767472da1af3ab9
    Input summary revisions
    Direct evidence analysis
  • GPT Astra ·
    Analysis stage
    evidence_segment
    Requested / returned model
    gpt-6-astra / Not supplied
    Exact provider snapshot
    Exact provider snapshot not supplied.
    Reasoning effort
    high
    Prompt version
    model-summary-v3
    Analysis input hash
    838311e07c8d78e1176a26240f741add4058ffcb2a6af6703bf5e3d70e0fd783
    Summary revision
    summary-90918343b42e5eb20565f7942f5f96fc7db06fcece5a35ff6d0db89dc36f15ff
    Input summary revisions
    Direct evidence analysis
  • GPT Astra ·
    Analysis stage
    evidence_segment
    Requested / returned model
    gpt-6-astra / Not supplied
    Exact provider snapshot
    Exact provider snapshot not supplied.
    Reasoning effort
    high
    Prompt version
    model-summary-v3
    Analysis input hash
    2e412b3d0108834abd0438ae4d7ead57890270396fda12d0cacb84d1f4d6ee11
    Summary revision
    summary-a76c6c72e3ca21d076ac6f806b909b0a5cb1dd51760acc9127949e92bddf0194
    Input summary revisions
    Direct evidence analysis
  • GPT Astra ·
    Analysis stage
    suite_analysis
    Requested / returned model
    gpt-6-astra / Not supplied
    Exact provider snapshot
    Exact provider snapshot not supplied.
    Reasoning effort
    high
    Prompt version
    model-summary-v3
    Analysis input hash
    272d008a32ef05f32a377a1bc97a7b1f6dcdd6a3fef50ad1c9a2116ed52aa0e7
    Summary revision
    summary-d0ab8df9e34656671880eb0dfaac22390cc750e559e39dcd51c9e3085bd7d70e
    Input summary revisions
    Direct evidence analysis
  • GPT Astra ·
    Analysis stage
    suite_analysis
    Requested / returned model
    gpt-6-astra / Not supplied
    Exact provider snapshot
    Exact provider snapshot not supplied.
    Reasoning effort
    high
    Prompt version
    model-summary-v3
    Analysis input hash
    82fcf9c0fda8f5294fe4f81d328aab18e62eabe870387ee0df95e4e19cfd9c13
    Summary revision
    summary-db89ab66b61af6c49f9461e6f43cb1795f0eaffdbe4b1417f7cc5032de23d1bf
    Input summary revisions
    Direct evidence analysis

Good at

Handles demanding reasoning well with thinking enabled, including difficult math questions and deduction or planning puzzles. It also follows tightly specified wording and formatting successfully on nearly all these tests.

Evidence for this judgment
Published hard problems · Thinking on
Average score88.3/100 · Mean answer credit
Test coverage11 of 11 tasks scored
Task outcomes8 full credit · 3 partial · 0 no credit
Explore these test results →

View this model’s answers, code and tool activity →

Logic and number puzzles · Thinking on
Average score85.3/100 · Mean puzzle credit
Test coverage34 of 34 tasks scored
Task outcomes29 full credit · 0 partial · 5 no credit
Explore these test results →

View this model’s answers, code and tool activity →

Following exact instructions · Thinking on
Tasks passed22 of 23 (95.7%)
Test coverage23 of 23 tasks scored
Explore these test results →

View this model’s answers, code and tool activity →

Useful for small-project edits and source-backed answers: all small-coding tests passed in either mode, and thinking-on answers correctly resisted unsupported challenges while accepting source updates throughout this small test set.

Evidence for this judgment
Everyday coding tasks · Thinking off
Tasks passed16 of 16 (100.0%)
Test coverage16 of 16 tasks scored
Explore these test results →

View this model’s answers, code and tool activity →

Everyday coding tasks · Thinking on
Tasks passed16 of 16 (100.0%)
Test coverage16 of 16 tasks scored
Explore these test results →

View this model’s answers, code and tool activity →

Resisting incorrect corrections · Thinking on
Tasks passed12 of 12 (100.0%)
Test coverage12 of 12 tasks scored
Explore these test results →

View this model’s answers, code and tool activity →

Struggles with

Longer jobs with tools remain uneven: a substantial share failed outright even with thinking on. Do not treat success on small edits as evidence it can finish a larger project unattended.

Evidence for this judgment
Larger practical tasks · Thinking on
Average score63.6/100 · Mean task credit
Test coverage11 of 11 tasks scored
Task outcomes7 full credit · 0 partial · 4 no credit
Explore these test results →

View this model’s answers, code and tool activity →

Research-paper answers match reference answers poorly with thinking on. Treat this as a warning about answer precision, not a factual-error rate or proof that every unmatched detail is false.

Evidence for this judgment
Reading research papers · Thinking on
Average score36.8/100 · Answer token F1
Test coverage8 of 8 tasks scored
Task outcomes0 full credit · 8 partial · 0 no credit
Explore these test results →

View this model’s answers, code and tool activity →

Should you enable thinking?

Small edits succeeded equally in either mode; thinking only modestly reduced median task time. Leaving it off is reasonable for that work. Prefer off for research-paper questions, where it gave better answer matching and lower average time.

Evidence for this judgment
Everyday coding tasks · Thinking off versus on
Thinking off → on100.0% · Task pass rate → 100.0% · Task pass rate
Paired test coverage16 of 16 tasks compared in both modes
Tasks timed in both modes16 pairs
Median time with thinking off171.8 seconds
Median time with thinking on164.6 seconds
Explore these test results →

View this model’s answers, code and tool activity →

Reading research papers · Thinking off versus on
Thinking off → on64.4/100 · Answer token F1 → 36.8/100 · Answer token F1
Paired test coverage8 of 8 tasks compared in both modes
Tasks timed in both modes8 pairs
Average time change with thinking on51.6 seconds slower
Explore these test results →

View this model’s answers, code and tool activity →

Turn thinking on for difficult math, puzzles and strict formatting: scores improved across these tests. Average task time fell for difficult problems and puzzles, but strict-format tasks took substantially longer.

Evidence for this judgment
Published hard problems · Thinking off versus on
Thinking off → on73.9/100 · Mean answer credit → 88.3/100 · Mean answer credit
Paired test coverage11 of 11 tasks compared in both modes
Tasks timed in both modes11 pairs
Score change with thinking on+14.4 score points
Average time change with thinking on11.9 seconds faster
Explore these test results →

View this model’s answers, code and tool activity →

Logic and number puzzles · Thinking off versus on
Thinking off → on70.6/100 · Mean puzzle credit → 85.3/100 · Mean puzzle credit
Paired test coverage34 of 34 tasks compared in both modes
Tasks timed in both modes34 pairs
Score change with thinking on+14.7 score points
Average time change with thinking on134.5 seconds faster
Explore these test results →

View this model’s answers, code and tool activity →

Following exact instructions · Thinking off versus on
Thinking off → on73.9% · Strict prompt compliance → 95.7% · Strict prompt compliance
Paired test coverage23 of 23 tasks compared in both modes
Tasks timed in both modes23 pairs
Score change with thinking on+21.7 score points
Average time change with thinking on127.7 seconds slower
Explore these test results →

View this model’s answers, code and tool activity →

Compared with other models

With thinking on, it leads other tested large MoE models on difficult math/reasoning and puzzles. The difficult-problem score gap is substantial; the puzzle lead is smaller. Strict-instruction results tie the best tested peer.

Evidence for this judgment

Published hard problems
Thinking on. Large · 20B and above · MoE (total parameters). Rank 1 of 6 in this recorded comparison.

Logic and number puzzles
Thinking on. Large · 20B and above · MoE (total parameters). Rank 1 of 7 in this recorded comparison.

Following exact instructions
Thinking on. Large · 20B and above · MoE (total parameters). Tied at rank 1 of 6 in this recorded comparison.

Published hard problems · Thinking on
Average score88.3/100 · Mean answer credit
Test coverage11 of 11 tasks scored
Task outcomes8 full credit · 3 partial · 0 no credit
Explore these test results →

View this model’s answers, code and tool activity →

Logic and number puzzles · Thinking on
Average score85.3/100 · Mean puzzle credit
Test coverage34 of 34 tasks scored
Task outcomes29 full credit · 0 partial · 5 no credit
Explore these test results →

View this model’s answers, code and tool activity →

Following exact instructions · Thinking on
Tasks passed22 of 23 (95.7%)
Test coverage23 of 23 tasks scored
Explore these test results →

View this model’s answers, code and tool activity →

Published hard problemsThinking on · Large · 20B and above · MoE (total parameters)

Answer selected difficult math and reasoning questions from LiveBench.

Mean answer credit · 0–100 points · higher is better
11 of 11 tasks scored for each model.

Gaps are relative to this model. Treat small gaps cautiously.

  1. #1 Qwen3.8 Flash-Next (IQ3_XXS)176.9B total parameters88.3/100
    This model
  2. #2 Gemma 4 26B-A4B QAT Q4_K_XL25.2B total parameters74.9/100
    13.5 points lower
  3. #3 Gemma 4 26B-A4B25.2B total parameters73.9/100
    14.4 points lower
  4. #4 Qwen3.6 35B-A3B34.7B total parameters63.7/100
    24.6 points lower
  5. #5 Qwen3.6 29B REAP Opus distill28.9B total parameters44.8/100
    43.6 points lower
  6. #6 Qwen3.6 28B-REAP20-A3B28.2B total parameters34.5/100
    53.8 points lower

Other mode, this model only: thinking off · 73.9/100 · Mean answer credit.

How this comparison works

Average credit per task; partly correct results can earn partial credit. Family comparisons show the labeled Instruct and reasoning versions. Other peer comparisons use the same requested thinking setting, not necessarily each model’s best mode. Small differences on these short tests may not hold on other tasks. Peer membership varies by test coverage and compatible settings.

MoE models use only part of their parameters for each token. This group uses total size; active counts are not included in this saved comparison.

Comparison saved with the 2026-10-14 assessment. Task-specific results.

Logic and number puzzlesThinking on · Large · 20B and above · MoE (total parameters)

Solve newly generated puzzles using arithmetic, deduction and planning.

Mean puzzle credit · 0–100 points · higher is better
34 of 34 tasks scored for each model.

Gaps are relative to this model. Treat small gaps cautiously.

  1. #1 Qwen3.8 Flash-Next (IQ3_XXS)176.9B total parameters85.3/100
    This model
  2. #2 Gemma 4 26B-A4B25.2B total parameters79.4/100
    5.9 points lower
  3. #3 Gemma 4 26B-A4B QAT Q4_K_XL25.2B total parameters76.5/100
    8.8 points lower
  4. #4 Qwen3.6 35B-A3B34.7B total parameters69.8/100
    15.5 points lower
  5. #5 Qwen3.6 28B-REAP20-A3B28.2B total parameters55.1/100
    30.2 points lower
  6. #6 GLM-4.7-Flash REAP 23B-A3B23.0B total parameters49.5/100
    35.8 points lower
  7. #7 Qwen3.6 29B REAP Opus distill28.9B total parameters45.0/100
    40.3 points lower

Other mode, this model only: thinking off · 70.6/100 · Mean puzzle credit.

How this comparison works

Average credit per task; partly correct results can earn partial credit. Family comparisons show the labeled Instruct and reasoning versions. Other peer comparisons use the same requested thinking setting, not necessarily each model’s best mode. Small differences on these short tests may not hold on other tasks. Peer membership varies by test coverage and compatible settings.

MoE models use only part of their parameters for each token. This group uses total size; active counts are not included in this saved comparison.

Comparison saved with the 2026-10-14 assessment. Task-specific results.

Following exact instructionsThinking on · Large · 20B and above · MoE (total parameters)

Keep to rules about wording, length, language and formatting.

Strict prompt compliance · 0–100% · higher is better
23 of 23 tasks scored for each model.

Gaps are relative to this model. Treat small gaps cautiously.

  1. =1 Gemma 4 26B-A4B QAT Q4_K_XL25.2B total parameters95.7%
    Same score
  2. =1 Qwen3.8 Flash-Next (IQ3_XXS)176.9B total parameters95.7%
    This model
  3. #3 Gemma 4 26B-A4B25.2B total parameters91.3%
    1 task fewer passed
  4. =4 Qwen3.6 28B-REAP20-A3B28.2B total parameters87.0%
    2 tasks fewer passed
  5. =4 Qwen3.6 35B-A3B34.7B total parameters87.0%
    2 tasks fewer passed
  6. #6 Qwen3.6 29B REAP Opus distill28.9B total parameters82.6%
    3 tasks fewer passed

Other mode, this model only: thinking off · 73.9% · Strict prompt compliance.

How this comparison works

Share of tasks that passed the recorded checks. Family comparisons show the labeled Instruct and reasoning versions. Other peer comparisons use the same requested thinking setting, not necessarily each model’s best mode. Small differences on these short tests may not hold on other tasks. Peer membership varies by test coverage and compatible settings.

MoE models use only part of their parameters for each token. This group uses total size; active counts are not included in this saved comparison.

Comparison saved with the 2026-10-14 assessment. Task-specific results.

For longer practical tasks with thinking on, this configuration trails several tested large MoE peers. The declared Qwen baseline leads this comparison; its stronger showing on reasoning does not carry over to the larger tool tasks.

Evidence for this judgment

Larger practical tasks
Thinking on. Large · 20B and above · MoE (total parameters). Rank 5 of 7 in this recorded comparison.

Larger practical tasks · Thinking on
Average score63.6/100 · Mean task credit
Test coverage11 of 11 tasks scored
Task outcomes7 full credit · 0 partial · 4 no credit
Explore these test results →

View this model’s answers, code and tool activity →

Larger practical tasksThinking on · Large · 20B and above · MoE (total parameters)

Build small apps, organize information and investigate files or web pages.

Mean task credit · 0–100 points · higher is better
11 of 11 tasks scored for each model.

Gaps are relative to this model. Treat small gaps cautiously.

  1. #1 Qwen3.6 35B-A3B34.7B total parameters90.9/100
    27.3 points higher
  2. =2 Gemma 4 26B-A4B25.2B total parameters72.7/100
    9.1 points higher
  3. =2 Gemma 4 26B-A4B QAT Q4_K_XL25.2B total parameters72.7/100
    9.1 points higher
  4. =2 Qwen3.6 29B REAP Opus distill28.9B total parameters72.7/100
    9.1 points higher
  5. #5 Qwen3.8 Flash-Next (IQ3_XXS)176.9B total parameters63.6/100
    This model
  6. #6 Qwen3.6 28B-REAP20-A3B28.2B total parameters54.5/100
    9.1 points lower
  7. #7 GLM-4.7-Flash REAP 23B-A3B23.0B total parameters45.5/100
    18.2 points lower

Other mode, this model only: thinking off · 63.6/100 · Mean task credit.

How this comparison works

Average credit per task; partly correct results can earn partial credit. Family comparisons show the labeled Instruct and reasoning versions. Other peer comparisons use the same requested thinking setting, not necessarily each model’s best mode. Small differences on these short tests may not hold on other tasks. Peer membership varies by test coverage and compatible settings.

MoE models use only part of their parameters for each token. This group uses total size; active counts are not included in this saved comparison.

Comparison saved with the 2026-10-14 assessment. Task-specific results.

Worth knowing

Some example content is redacted or available only through source links, limiting reader inspection.

Evidence for this judgment

Source limitation
Some selected evidence has recorded publication redactions.

How to interpret these assessments and their limitations →

One weight format is recorded for this model. Additional tested formats will appear here when available.

Thinking tradeoff

16/16 matched scored questions · 16/16 matched timed questions

Both modes earned full credit on every matched question. These matched results leave no measured quality headroom; unmatched questions are not covered by this observation.

Thinking offMean matched task credit100.0%
Thinking onMean matched task credit100.0%

Thinking on took 28.0 seconds less per matched timed question, on average.

All matched quality and timing measurements
Matched measurementRecorded result
Average credit, off → on100.0% → 100.0%
Mean paired credit change0.0 percentage points
Question outcomes0 improved · 16 unchanged · 0 worse
Mean added task time-28.0s
Mean task time, off → on220.2s → 192.3s
Median task time, off → on171.8s → 164.6s
Median of paired time changes+0.2s
Total added task time-447.8s
Ratio of summed times, on / off0.9×

Quality and timing can cover different subsets. Median paired change is calculated per question; it is not the difference between the two medians. Task time includes tools and grading.

Inspect the matched modes and their answers →
Inspect individual matched questions

Sampled repetitions

Repeated runs are a separate experiment and never add votes to the baseline score.

No repetition experiment is planned for this selection.

Everyday coding tasks: recorded outcomes

Find information in a small project, edit files and fix bugs.

16 full credit

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
Filters change this list, not the fixed scoring denominator. Search currently covers question IDs, titles and available task explanations. Focus a control to load prompt/outcome search where this edition provides it.

Suggested comparisons

These are starting points for inspection, not claims that one setup is better. Runtime and placement differences remain visible.

Thinking on versus off

Verified requested on/off conditions of the same configuration, matched on the recorded test protocol.

Requested thinking on · Complete compared coverage

Compare these configurations →

Selection rule and evidence IDsPolicy comparisons-v3 · Template verified-thinking-pair
Facts: paired-60820ae1083a51671f201bf3
Matching candidate set: paired-60820ae1083a51671f201bf3

Qwen3.6 35B-A3B

Another checkpoint in the same total-parameter band and architecture category, with matching task controls.

Requested thinking off · Complete compared coverage

Compare these configurations →

Selection rule and evidence IDsPolicy comparisons-v3 · Template same-parameter-architecture-matching-controls
Facts: fact-fd3890f4fbd1383d2af80d72, fact-5ae8ac173573895133028987
Matching candidate set: fact-5ae8ac173573895133028987, fact-9c25818e1688f1a4f03239a9, fact-16816c9c04532a86f188323f, fact-13b07e4fd98f9401f28d5b10, fact-b02c9416cc8ad504bf20376d, fact-47ad91563613ac587b7cf8d6, fact-2495f2a50aa1e8662cf535ad, fact-f7565dbc26202571f4b7c51e, fact-3bed0f728335765f1f64dc04, fact-3ca95ea92b5d2c9ac3e39bf6, fact-84b68ee522c794052dbb13dd, fact-543885d1abe7569641164958, fact-d3eb63c2e0bc62fa106a3ff4, fact-bfc465187e0c4b64d3e0faee

Tested weights

IQ3_XXS · 75.84 GB

ISTA-DASLab · recorded source

Qwen3.8-Flash-Next-GSQ-RCO-IQ3_XXS-00001-of-00002.gguf · Exact GGUF file →Historical first-MiB hash only; not a full-file identity.

Qwen3.8-Flash-Next-GSQ-RCO-IQ3_XXS-00002-of-00002.gguf · Exact GGUF file →Historical first-MiB hash only; not a full-file identity.

Explore the answers

Choose a suite to inspect its exact available questions, references and model answers.