Compare / Qwen3.8-Max (0902) vs Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
Qwen3.8-Max (0902) vs Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview
Which is cheaper, which is more capable, and which does better at each kind of work, from 81 results on 8 sources that measured both models.
AlibabaQwen3.8-Max (0902)
GoogleGemini 3.1 Pro Preview
Qwen3.8-Max (0902) wins 2320 too close to callGemini 3.1 Pro Preview wins 38
Of the 81 results both models have, the better value on each. Results whose reported ranges overlap are too close to call.
Results as of 9 October 2026 (catalogue release 2026-10-09-dd620e778ac5). See also Alibaba vs Google, every model from both labs.
Qwen3.8-Max (0902) or Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview? The short answer
They score about the same, so pick Qwen3.8-Max (0902): it costs 28% less per product listing on CatalogBench. Pick Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview if speed matters: it writes faster.
- Spring Prompt overall: Qwen3.8-Max (0902) 48, Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview 49 (out of 100; how the score works).
- Qwen3.8-Max (0902) is cheaper to run: $0.026 against $0.035 per product listing on CatalogBench (28% less).
- Qwen3.8-Max (0902) scores higher on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index: 45.4 against 29.7.
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview writes faster: 120 tokens a second against 37.
- Qwen3.8-Max (0902) is newer: released 3 Aug 2026, against 19 Feb 2026 for Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview.
- On our own benchmarks, on the results both models have: Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview does better for product listings and marketing planning.
- On third-party benchmarks, on the results both models have: Qwen3.8-Max (0902) does better for agents and tool use and professional work; Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview for reasoning and knowledge and sticking to the facts.
Head to head
48
Spring Prompt overall
49
45.4
Intelligence Index
29.7
$3.00
Price per million tokens, blendedlower is better
$4.50
37
Output speed, tokens a second
120
1,000,000
Context window, tokens
1,048,576
Every fact side by side
| Qwen3.8-Max (0902) | Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview | |
|---|---|---|
| Price per million tokens | $2.00 in · $6.00 out | $2.00 in · $12.00 out |
| Blended (3 in : 1 out) | $3.00 | $4.50 |
| Cheapest host, blended | – | $4.50 (Google) |
| Cost per product listing (CatalogBench) | $0.026 | $0.035 |
| Cached input, per million | – | $0.20 cached input |
| Intelligence Index | 45.4 | 29.7 |
| Spring Prompt overall | 48 | 49 |
| Output speed, tokens a second | 37 | 120 |
| Context window | 1,000,000 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens |
| Released | 3 Aug 2026 (newer) | 19 Feb 2026 |
| Weights | Closed | Closed |
| Developer based in | China | the US |
Prices are the developer's list price where we have read it, otherwise the typical host on OpenRouter; see every model's price. Intelligence and speed from Artificial Analysis.
Which is better for what
Each model's rank among the models on sale today, for each kind of work, from our own benchmarks and licensed sources. Further right is better; the better rank is in green.
Product listingsTurning a sparse product feed and photos into listings that can go live
17 of 20
8 of 20
Decks from an analysisTurning a finished analysis into a deck you could present as it is
11 of 19
13 of 19
User surveysPlanning a user survey and reading its results without being misled
not measured
5 of 8
Marketing planningPlanning a year of ad spend without overspending
14 of 19
9 of 19
Agents and tool useMulti-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls
7 of 164
61 of 164
Professional workReal tasks from banking, consulting and law, business documents and freelance projects
18 of 51
36 of 51
Reasoning and knowledgeHard questions across science, maths and general knowledge
17 of 198
24 of 198
WritingWhat people prefer in blind comparisons, and judged writing quality
16 of 188
9 of 188
Sticking to the factsSummarising without inventing things, and factual answers
38 of 152
34 of 152
Speed under pressureGood decisions against a real clock (fast chess)
24 of 24
5 of 23
From our research
Every shared result
Each model's best result on every measure both have, grouped by benchmark, with the setting that produced it. Under each measure, every model that benchmark has measured is a grey tick, best to the right, so you can see where the two sit in the field. The headline measures of each benchmark come first; the rest are under "Show all". Green marks the better value; where a source reports ranges that overlap, neither is marked.
| Measure | Qwen3.8-Max (0902) | Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview |
|---|---|---|
| CatalogBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per productUS dollars, lower is better 15 · 16 of 20 measured | $0.0256 | $0.0355 |
| Reliably publish-ready% of products, higher is better 13 · 8 of 20 measured | 28.6% | 44.6% |
| Reliably publish-ready · sales brief% of products, higher is better 18 · 8 of 20 measured | 0.0% | 16.1% |
| DeckBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per deckUS dollars, lower is better 11 · 10 of 19 measured | $0.15 | $0.14 |
| Deck ratingrating, higher is betterThe rating weighs each win by how strong the other deck was; the win rate counts wins against whichever decks a model happened to meet, so the two can disagree. 11 · 13 of 19 measured | 1,100 | 858 |
| Accurate decks% of tasks, higher is better 8 · 8 of 19 measured | 50.0% | 50.0% |
| ROASBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Overall scorescore out of 100, higher is better 14 · 9 of 19 measured | 25.4 | 43.5 |
| Audience scorescore out of 100, higher is better 17 · 6 of 19 measured | 39.7 | 67.5 |
| Business scorescore out of 100, higher is better 14 · 9 of 19 measured | 15.6 | 35.9 |
| Arena (formerly LMArena) reported by Arena (formerly LMArena) · 3 results | ||
| Overall · TextArena rating, higher is better 20 · 15 of 387 measured | 1,482 | 1,487 |
| Overall · Text factualityArena rating, higher is better 22 · 21 of 163 measured | 1,472 | 1,472 |
| Business, management and finance · TextArena rating, higher is better 16 · 23 of 380 measured | 1,484 | 1,477 |
| Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 3 results | ||
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence Indexindex score, higher is better 14 · 52 of 243 measured | 45.4 | 29.7 |
| GPQA Diamond% of questions, higher is better 15 · 5 of 231 measured | 92.8% | 94.1% |
| Humanity's Last Exam% of questions, higher is better 24 · 16 of 242 measured | 43.1% | 47.0% |
| GDP.pdf reported by GDP.pdf · 1 result | ||
| Professional document tasks% of rubric, higher is better 13 · 20 of 32 measured | 23.2%xhigh reasoning | 17.0% |
| SimpleQA Verified (Epoch AI) reported by SimpleQA Verified (Epoch AI) · 1 result | ||
| Correct answers% of questions, higher is better 30 · 3 of 76 measured | 47.3%xhigh reasoning | 73.5%high reasoning |
| τ²-bench reported by τ²-bench · 2 results | ||
| Consistency (pass^4) · tau2 v1.0.1, banking knowledge, alltools retrieval% of tasks, higher is better 1 · 17 of 21 measured | 35.1%xhigh reasoning, tau2 | 9.3%high reasoning, tau2 |
| Task success (pass^1) · tau2 v1.0.1, banking knowledge, alltools retrieval% of tasks, higher is better 1 · 15 of 21 measured | 55.2%xhigh reasoning, tau2 | 26.0%high reasoning, tau2 |
Show all 81 results (62 more)
| Measure | Qwen3.8-Max (0902) | Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview |
|---|---|---|
| CatalogBench measured by Spring Prompt · 27 results | ||
| Channel compliance% of products, higher is better 1 · 14 of 20 measured | 100.0% | 99.4% |
| Channel rules broken% of products, lower is better 11 · 11 of 20 measured | 0.6% | 0.6% |
| Channel rules broken · sales brief% of products, lower is better 19 · 1 of 20 measured | 3.0% | 0.0% |
| Claims to check% of products, lower is better 1 · 16 of 20 measured | 0.0% | 1.2% |
| Claims to check · sales brief% of products, lower is better 13 · 17 of 20 measured | 1.3% | 10.1% |
| Conflicts caught% of conflicts, higher is better 1 · 1 of 20 measured | 100.0% | 100.0% |
| Content quality% of checks, higher is better 18 · 10 of 20 measured | 94.2% | 96.9% |
| Content quality · sales brief% of checks, higher is better 19 · 10 of 20 measured | 93.6% | 97.2% |
| Decision accuracy% of decisions, higher is better 16 · 9 of 20 measured | 93.3% | 96.6% |
| Failed outputs% of products, lower is better 19 · 1 of 20 measured | 3.6% | 0.0% |
| Failed outputs · sales brief% of products, lower is better 19 · 1 of 20 measured | 3.6% | 0.0% |
| Field accuracy% of missing fields, higher is better 19 · 1 of 20 measured | 90.3% | 95.4% |
| Invented values% of filled values, lower is better 15 · 11 of 20 measured | 2.7% | 1.5% |
| Missing UK information% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 20 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Missing UK information · sales brief% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 20 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Not findable% of products, lower is better 4 · 13 of 20 measured | 3.6% | 7.7% |
| Not findable · sales brief% of products, lower is better 2 · 13 of 20 measured | 1.8% | 6.0% |
| Publish-ready listings% of products, higher is better 12 · 10 of 20 measured | 50.0% | 58.9% |
| Publish-ready listings · sales brief% of products, higher is better 18 · 9 of 20 measured | 7.7% | 30.4% |
| Unsupported claims% of products, lower is better 10 · 10 of 20 measured | 26.8% | 26.8% |
| Unsupported claimsclaims per product, lower is better 10 · 9 of 20 measured | 0.69 | 0.66 |
| Unsupported claims · sales briefclaims per product, lower is better 19 · 11 of 20 measured | 4.52 | 2.13 |
| Unsupported claims · sales brief% of products, lower is better 19 · 11 of 20 measured | 84.5% | 67.3% |
| Wrong attributes% of products, lower is better 16 · 4 of 20 measured | 21.4% | 14.9% |
| Wrong attributes · sales brief% of products, lower is better 13 · 8 of 20 measured | 19.6% | 16.1% |
| Wrong category or variant% of products, lower is better 4 · 4 of 20 measured | 1.8% | 1.8% |
| Wrong category or variant · sales brief% of products, lower is better 10 · 4 of 20 measured | 2.4% | 1.8% |
| DeckBench measured by Spring Prompt · 13 results | ||
| Caveat dropped% of tasks, lower is better 10 · 10 of 19 measured | 16.7% | 16.7% |
| Clean layout% of tasks, higher is better 6 · 11 of 19 measured | 66.7% | 50.0% |
| Design quality% of the maximum, higher is better 9 · 15 of 19 measured | 67.0% | 51.4% |
| Draft figure quoted% of tasks, lower is better 11 · 1 of 19 measured | 33.3% | 0.0% |
| Findings missing% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 1 of 19 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Head-to-head win rate% of comparisons, higher is betterThe rating weighs each win by how strong the other deck was; the win rate counts wins against whichever decks a model happened to meet, so the two can disagree. 10 · 13 of 19 measured | 61.5% | 32.7% |
| Layout defects% of tasks, lower is better 6 · 11 of 19 measured | 33.3% | 50.0% |
| Misleading metric used% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 1 of 19 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Presentable decks% of tasks, higher is better 5 · 10 of 19 measured | 33.3% | 16.7% |
| Recommendation late or wrong% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 13 of 19 measured | 0.0% | 50.0% |
| Slides needing work% of tasks, lower is better 10 · 17 of 19 measured | 50.0% | 83.3% |
| Unsupported claims% of tasks, lower is better 10 · 1 of 19 measured | 16.7% | 0.0% |
| Unsupported numbers% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 1 of 19 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| ROASBench measured by Spring Prompt · 6 results | ||
| Consistency scorescore out of 100, higher is better 13 · 5 of 19 measured | 19.3 | 33.9 |
| Contribution profitsimulated US dollars, higher is better 14 · 10 of 19 measured | $99,775 | $507,736 |
| Cost of a runUS dollars, lower is better 15 · 14 of 19 measured | $0.73 | $0.52 |
| Months over budgetmonths of 12, lower is better 17 · 1 of 19 measured | 2 | 0 |
| Planning scorescore out of 100, higher is better 9 · 6 of 19 measured | 54.8 | 54.9 |
| Return on ad spendprofit per $1 spent, higher is better 14 · 10 of 19 measured | $0.09 | $0.42 |
| Arena (formerly LMArena) reported by Arena (formerly LMArena) · 8 results | ||
| Confirmed task success · AgentIPS effect estimate, higher is better 20 · 42 of 48 measured | 0.05arena agent | -0.10arena agent |
| Creative writing · TextArena rating, higher is better 17 · 10 of 385 measured | 1,468 | 1,480 |
| Expert prompts · TextArena rating, higher is better 20 · 26 of 338 measured | 1,513 | 1,509 |
| Instruction following · TextArena rating, higher is better 25 · 17 of 387 measured | 1,474 | 1,480 |
| Praise over complaint · AgentIPS effect estimate, higher is better 20 · 29 of 48 measured | 0.03arena agent | -0.01arena agent |
| Steerability · AgentIPS effect estimate, higher is better 18 · 37 of 48 measured | 0.03arena agent | -0.05arena agent |
| Tool grounding · AgentIPS effect estimate, higher is better 43 · 35 of 48 measured | -0.01arena agent | -0.00arena agent |
| Writing, literature and language · TextArena rating, higher is better 18 · 11 of 386 measured | 1,472 | 1,480 |
| Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 8 results | ||
| Terminal-Bench 2.1% of tasks, higher is better 5 · 35 of 130 measured | 88.8% | 73.8% |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0% of tasks, higher is better 12 · 45 of 112 measured | 38.9% | 4.0% |
| τ-bench banking% of tasks, higher is better 7 · 46 of 121 measured | 47.8% | 21.4% |
| Artificial Analysis Coding Indexindex score, higher is better 10 · 30 of 131 measured | 76.2 | 68.8 |
| Long-context reasoning (AA-LCR)% of questions, higher is better 35 · 24 of 233 measured | 80.3% | 82.0% |
| Output speedtokens per second, higher is better 71 · 27 of 74 measured | 37.0 | 120 |
| SciCode% of problems, higher is better 36 · 12 of 113 measured | 52.1% | 58.7% |
| Time to first answer tokenseconds, lower is better 74 · 53 of 74 measured | 55.8 | 16.5 |
Compare them with other models
- Alibaba vs GoogleEvery model from both labs, best against best
- Qwen3.8-Max (0902) vs Claude Opus 5.5Most intelligent at $3–10 per million tokens
- Qwen3.8-Max (0902) vs Claude Haiku 5.5Cheapest with similar intelligence
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview vs Claude Opus 5.5Most intelligent at $3–10 per million tokens
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview vs Inkling SmallFastest with similar intelligence
Quick answers
Is Qwen3.8-Max (0902) better than Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview?
They score about the same, so pick Qwen3.8-Max (0902): it costs 28% less per product listing on CatalogBench. Pick Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview if speed matters: it writes faster.
Which is cheaper, Qwen3.8-Max (0902) or Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview?
Qwen3.8-Max (0902) is cheaper to run: $0.026 against $0.035 per product listing on CatalogBench (28% less).
Which is faster, Qwen3.8-Max (0902) or Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview?
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview writes about 120 tokens a second on its usual API, against 37 for Qwen3.8-Max (0902) (Artificial Analysis).
Which is better for product listings, Qwen3.8-Max (0902) or Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview?
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview ranks 8 of 20 models on sale for turning a sparse product feed and photos into listings that can go live, against 17 for Qwen3.8-Max (0902).
Which is better for decks from an analysis, Qwen3.8-Max (0902) or Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview?
Qwen3.8-Max (0902) ranks 11 of 19 models on sale for turning a finished analysis into a deck you could present as it is, against 13 for Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview.
Which is better for marketing planning, Qwen3.8-Max (0902) or Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview?
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview ranks 9 of 19 models on sale for planning a year of ad spend without overspending, against 14 for Qwen3.8-Max (0902).
Which is better for agents and tool use, Qwen3.8-Max (0902) or Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview?
Qwen3.8-Max (0902) ranks 7 of 164 models on sale for multi-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls, against 61 for Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview.
Which has the bigger context window, Qwen3.8-Max (0902) or Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview?
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: 1,048,576 tokens, against 1,000,000 for Qwen3.8-Max (0902).
Run Qwen3.8-Max (0902) and Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview on your own prompt
Benchmarks aren't your data. Try both side by side in the playground, with the cost of every answer.