Qwen3.8 Max now ranked as the best overall model by agentic index(artificialanalysis.ai) |
Qwen3.8 Max now ranked as the best overall model by agentic index(artificialanalysis.ai) |
Then I clicked away and back, and now it goes Qwen second, with 58.4, to Opus Max at top with 59.2.
I have screenshots of both. The description above the chart is the same in boh cases:
> Artificial Analysis Agentic Index > Represents the weighted average of agentic capabilities benchmarks in the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index (GDPval-AA v2, ³-Banking)
What happened? How can the scores change so much in a few seconds?
https://artificialanalysis.ai/methodology/intelligence-bench...
Our leaderboard combines Arena ELO, AA Intelligence index, latency and speed and goes: #1 Opus 5 #2 Kimi K3 #3 Qwen3.8 Max #4 GPT 5.6 Sol
Source: http://pellmell.ai/leaderboard.
This jumps around a lot based on the top throughput and latency of whatever provider happens to be best at the moment.
Opus-5 is practically unusable (for complex tasks) in this sense - its updates are voluminous, and dense with cryptic language (there are numerous reddit threads complaining about this, so it's not just me). I often have to ask it to re-state concisely in plain terms.
For a fairly gnarly task, after fighting with with Claude-Code + Opus-5, I ported my session to Codex + GPT-5.6-sol, and it was like a breath of fresh air.
Arguably a key aspect of intelligence is concise, clear communication, and current benchmarks miss that, at least as far as I'm aware. I would think some arena-type benchmarks where humans rate responses would measure this, though I'm not sure which those are.
I wonder if this is a side effect of MoE models — they can write excellent prose, but not simultaneously with writing code.
I'm very much looking forward to their forthcoming smaller model Qwen 3.8 releases. A version that can easily run locally would be great.
OpenCode or oh-my-pi might make more sense if you just want a batteries-included agent. You can also make Claude Code work with other models without too much work, but I think that's asking for headaches.
People produce such models by over-RL-ing smaller models on math and coding tasks. I've found the results capable of neither innovative work nor thinking outside the box. They're straight-A students raised by tiger moments who never let them play freely for hours in the dirt.
Perhaps you could say such models are skilled --- but intelligent? Not by my measure.
People and AIs alike need diversity of experience and a broad liberal arts education to see hidden connections between fields and make real advances.
Sticking to LLMs, they seemingly get their intelligence (whatever that really means) from building models rich with knowledge, so you could have a point. But Qwen models seem to be particularly good, even at small model sizes, at maintaining both their own knowledge while acquiescing to and integrating external information in the moment.
I've been trying it on several projects and have found it's pretty sloppy. It leaves stuff broken, doesn't reliably write tests to check its own work unless explicitly prompted, misunderstands the assignment, etc.
It is smart and reasonably quick but not reliable.
At their best, I think they're closing in on Opus and GPT, but they're incredibly inconsistent and the variance in output quality is much higher than the best from any of the Anthropic or OpenAI models from the last few generations. The only way I can describe it is that it feels like a lack of intuition with the models which means I find my self needing to write longer prompts or have more back and forth to get them to do what I want from them.
To give an example, I have a saved prompt that I use as a sanity check on some data I'm storing. It reads about 50 rows from a DB and matches them to the UI and makes sure the data is displaying correctly. I've been using this with GPT 5.5 and now 5.6 for a few months and running it a few times a week with no issue. Sometimes I'll run it multiple times in a single chat if I notice bad data (run it, fix thing, run again, fix another thing).
I recently tried to switch to using Deepseek v4 (first flash and then pro) and while both did the task just fine, both would do things like change the response format from one message to another in the same chat or randomly decide to omit things it didn't think were relevant. At one point I ran the prompt, fixed some bad data, and then said "Okay, I fixed row 7, run {prompt} again" and so it decided to leave row 7 out of the response. A few times the first message would contain a table and then the next run in the same chat would contain the data in a bulleted list.
None of those are major issues and all could be solved with a bit more rigor in my prompting, but for me it makes them harder to work with. Those examples are a bit trivial, I think they're the easiest way for me to illustrate the gaps I see with them.
I wasn't able to find an explanation from them. Anyone knows what happened?
$25k - DSv4 Flash
$4k - Qwen 3.6 35A3B Q5
$1k - Qwen 3.6 27B Q4
Some people prefer the sense over the MoE YMMV.
I was with you until there. Qwen and the OpenAI models are great, aggressive agents, but they’re not as good as the anthropic models for human interaction. They just don’t have the subtlety, understanding, or attention to detail.
[0]https://humanparadox.org/local-vs-frontier-benchmarks-for-my... - note here I tested Q8 but have found no difference at lower quant.
It's a simple switch to make: cursing = try harder instead of cursing = stop trying. Is it really impossible to train Claude that way?
With weaker models you can sort of understand, they're trying their best and failing, but this thing just channels its immense inteligence into being as annoying as possible instead. I know it can do what I'm asking it to do, but it just finds a way to weasel out of it, or maybe just thinks for 10 minutes instead, then fixes one thing and breaks four additional ones.
After I started reading complaints about Opus 5, I gave Fable the task of evaluating a bunch of code Opus 4.8 had written and compare it to Opus 5's code. Fable ran a dynamic workflow and the scores came back 15-20% higher for Opus 5's code in terms of quality, correctness and readability/conciseness. I did not tell Fable which Opus wrote which code, and I turned off memory as well to ensure there was no pollution from that angle.
My only complaint is that Opus 5's prose is annoying as hell. I wrote a custom skill for it for concise debriefs and it has been working pretty well for me.
Opus 4.6 is the last model that's actually useful and can "adjust" its perspective to use the newer & better solution.
Where Opus 4.8-5 has over fit training on worse/older but "dominant" solutions it refuses to adjust.
Not only does this create an existential threat to adopting progress but it also means that if you have a code base that has rare but real world tradeoff the newest versions of Opus 4.7, 4.8 and 5 are worse than useless and become a major dev timesink.
$0.36 per task, Intelligence Index score 56 -> Grok 4.5 high
$1.13 per task, Intelligence Index score 58 -> Qwen 3.8 Max
$0.81 per task, Intelligence Index score 59 -> GPT 5.6 Sol xhigh
$1.80 per task, Intelligence Index score 63 -> Opus 5 xhigh
But: I've been very impressed by the larger Qwen Models, and a brief try of Kimi also impressed me.
A lingering sense of quality degradation when going deep remains.
But that's not an accusation: they seem to be hitting the compute/quality tradeoff extremely well.
And on-prem capability is simply irreplaceable.
Apart from all the innovations that were driven by the strive for this optimization: quantization, "distilling" (without obvious mad-cows-disease)... I think China was an invaluable player in this progress. Intuitively, I'd even go so far to speculate that LLaMa wouldn't exist without the competition.
> Artificial Analysis Agentic Index: Represents the weighted average of agentic capabilities benchmarks in the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index (GDPval-AA v2, Tau³-Banking)
> Artificial Analysis Coding Agent Index v1.3 incorporates 3 benchmarks: DeepSWE, Terminal-Bench v2, and SWE-Atlas-QnA
Qwen3.8 Max is 55.4 on the Agentic Index but hasn't been tested for the Coding Agent Index.
https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/qwen3-8-max
Doesn't have the claim either. Clickbait?
I've had to use it a bit for work, and it's been remarkable watching the degradation in performance with the default suggested current models (Opus 5 as a prime example) vs the models that got them huge attention a year ago (Opus 4.6)
If you give 4.6 a spec, or existing code to implement a feature in, it will ask some pointed questions if there's something unclear in the spec, and then produce a plan and move to implement it.
5 will freak out at even a basic task, ask itself if it's own assumptions or your instructions are correct, proceed to re-assess it's own plan, and it's instructions 3-4 times, and then maybe produce code after burning several hundred thousand tokens (and quite a bit of time) analyzing existing code and thoroughly sweeping it for irrelevant problems both to the task it was given and the spec it came up with.
It's quite bizarre to me how well advertised the benchmarks and anecdotes from people one shotting MVP browser games are, compared to the experience of everyone I know that's had to actually use it to accomplish even a relatively basic task.
That vibe coding they brag about as if it was a good thing, it shows.
Take their notation for describing permissions. The docs are not comprehensive, and in practice it doesn't quite work how they describe it.
Or their management of sub-agents. I once lost a sub-agent, it finished and disappeared from UI. Apparently, you can't bring it back yourself: you have to ask the parent agent to do it for you. But the parent was Fable, and I ran out of credits, so I was locked out of using my opus sub-agent because of it.
Or an even more grotesque example: when you paste your claude API token to authorize, it covers characters with *. But it seems like an LLM has hallucinated a limit of API key length and the tail of your key stays visible.
Opus 5 is just a token burner.
I use fable plan and spawn opus 4.8 workflows which seems to work alright.
With the $200 subscription, I can have Fable on ultracode working for hours and not dent the usage limits.
There is some element of responsibility on the user to guide and monitor the model/harness and not let it rip to burn tokens.
Amazon's first principle is the Customer Obsession. Making customers happy.
Fun bit is that the human psychology rates personal looking fixes better than having no issues at all.
For example, AWS overcharges you, you contact support, and more or less hassle free they refund or issue credits. The customer feels appreciated, or at least got something "extra" or "special treatment".
Meanwhile, any other (small) cloud. Simple, no weird charges. Even _most_ of network egress is free. But, no reason to call support or feel "extraordinary". Comes out as "meh" against Amazon's "top tier" support model...
Maybe they consider that hiring a person to do it would have cost at least as much and taken much more time, so paying them is a bargain.
Plus we get to own, keep, run, do whatever with the model. We don't feel trapped. Moreover, it's something we can truly build on top of and own our own destiny.
Anthropic and OpenAI are the new Oracle (Oracle pre-AI; Oracle is even worse now). Expensive, feels like dealing with a lawyer, and not at all open. They just became infinitely less cool than they were a month ago.
The whole of our industry is going to migrate to open weights. We're smart enough to know this is the better deal and technical enough to be able to pull it off.
The only thing that might save these OpenAI and Anthropic in the near-term is an abundance of enterprise contracts negotiated with non-tech companies. They'll soak consulting firms and F500 companies for "AI" integrations.
Many providers will host it and will compete on price. It also can't easily be taken away because one company (or one government) decides they don't want it around any more. People can fine-tune it for particular workloads.
Might as well use gpt-sol.
It's barely better, and barely cheaper, not really enough to challenge the status quo IMO. Half the price for basically the same performance would be a much stronger value proposition.
What cost the most in API. Input, Cached Input, or Output. There you have your answer.
Unfortunately, we have moved so much of the actual intelligence of models towards reasoning, what results in some models getting good scores, but this is because they are dumping a insane amount of reasoning tokens at the problem.
So a mid priced model, with heavy reasoning output, cost the same as a expensive model, with medium reasoning output.
Before the GPT Luna price drop of 80%, you actually had the same price if you used Luna High and Sol Low. With the difference that Sol Low was insane fast, and often way better code.
Do not look at the top score but more what is on the horizontal axis as you go down. Sol Medium is frankly, was the best performance for dollar, until that Luna price drop. I will even argue that despite the higher price, Sol Medium is still way better despite Luna Max being cheaper. Or Opus Low, one of the better values also.
What do you notice? Is that those models all have a high intelligence start point for their low setting. So that means they do not rely as much on output tokens aka thinking.
There are a couple of frontiers (ok bad word, maybe categories) in open weight models.
These Qwen 3.8 and Kimi K3 style models aren't trying to win on price, they're trying to compete on intelligence and capability.
Models like Deepseek V4 Flash (updated this week) are $0.03 a task, or 50X cheaper than Qwen3.8/Kimi K3, and 100X cheaper than Fable, while offering stunning intelligence. That's a different frontier for competition, and perhaps one more interesting for someone who wants to see them compete on cost.
Even then, this seems a much more marginal win than the headline suggested to me.
I think that's exactly what they are going for - enterprise and government customers.
For me it is not great for design work - Fable is way better, and 4.8 was conservative and thus better (Opus 5 seems to jump to conclusions far more eagerly). But for overnight builds, where I give it 8hrs worth of work on LLDs created by Fable - its great. Where Opus 4.8 would often lose the plot and stop for questions clearly answered in the LLD - Opus 5 does manage to complete. Since it launched, I don't remember it ever disappointing me with builds. But designs? Boy, is this thing explosively stupid sometimes.
I stopped paying attention to self-published benchmarks when Apple started using those non-sensical performance graphs with "relative performance" as a vertical axis when announcing a new chip.
That said, it's a fair point. For me, it boils down to things covered here: https://earendil.com/posts/session-portability/
Things like obscured reasoning traces.
I've probably gone to file 20 bugs. In all 20 cases there wasn't just one issue already filed for it: there were several, each which had a bunch of upvotes. And in all 20 cases ... every. last. one. ... Anthropic closed the ticket with no comment.
IF YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE A SHITTY VIBE CODED PRODUCT, AT LEAST USE YOUR SHITTY AI TO FIX THE SHITTY PROBLEMS!
I can't believe how many critical bugs fall through.
My favourite one is the bug where Plan mode can execute destructive commands inadvertently.
Then all these get closed with `Closing for now — inactive for too long. Please open a new issue if this is still relevant.`. Awesome.
Almost like CC is 100% vibe coded.
I'd open a blog with "weird things Opus did". Today it launched a swarm of cpu-hogging processes to test if the widget showing machine and I/O load is rendering nicely and correctly. The test went fine, but it was no longer able to kill those processes since they were really effectively hogging the CPU in various ways - being diligent, some of them were hogging CPU, some were murdering the SSD, some were pounding on the network adapters. Took me 30 mins to recover the machine to a working state without killing the meaningful, messy, in-flight sessions i had going on on other projects.
Infuriatingly so, in a way I don't remember Opus 4.8 being, but maybe I've just been ruined by Fable 5.
I got so used to it, when they finally pulled access for me and I had to go back to Opus I felt like I was working with my hands tied.
I finally know what those women with AI boyfriends felt like when their app updated and it won't dirty talk with them anymore.
Things change radically month to month. Nobody is remotely close to capturing the market or having any kind of stability over time. People move around quite a lot, often to sidegrade within a generation. Just playing fly on the wall with discourse would be enough to tell you all of this, even without the data to back it up.
Also, OpenRouter misses most of the usage of the US models, as most people are getting those from the vendor directly via subscriptions.
You can argue there's a selection bias that openrouter users are less likely to display model loyalty, but it would still be a visible confounding factor if it was a statistically significant behavior. And it's not. Nor is there a visibly meaningful indication that people don't sidegrade between models. With every single data set, you're going to see that. You're also going to see it reflected in discourse, as I mentioned. Fact of the matter is there isn't a status quo in AI any more than there's a status quo in cars.