UnifyBench

RankingEffort benchmarks

Qwen3.8-flash

Compare models

1 measured results · 1 effort settings · 1 benchmark/harness combinations

Model evidence and sources →

Change model

Compare with

Choose a second model and its effort to see both profiles and benchmark differences below.

Compare with

Capability profile

One configuration, seven capabilities

Comparison score · 0–100
Qwen3.8-flash · Max capability radarComparison scores from 0 to 100. Unknown capabilities have no point; lines stop at gaps. Hollow points are preliminary. Exact values and support labels follow the chart.AgenticHard reasoningCodingHuman prefKnowledgeMultimodalLong context50100

Gaps are unknown, not zero. Hollow points are preliminary.

  • Agentic

    Unknown

  • Hard reasoning

    Unknown

  • Coding

    Unknown

  • Human pref

    Unknown

  • Knowledge

    Unknown

  • Multimodal

    Unknown

  • Long context

    Unknown

Each profile belongs to the named configuration. Capability scores use a shared panel for all axes, distinct from the overall ranking panel; they are not accuracy percentages or direct head-to-head wins.

Capability score evidence

Qwen3.8-flash · Max: No connected estimate. No admitted path to the complete configuration reference panel

Which sources carry the weight?

    These shares describe direct comparison weight, not fractions of the final score or confidence. Source balancing does not give every family equal weight or remove correlations between overlapping sources.

    This configuration did not qualify for the dated stability audit.

    What evidence is missing from the fit?

    Across all collected settings for this model: 2 observations, 0 contributing, 0 matched without graph weight and 2 excluded. Counts do not establish rank eligibility.

    • 1 · Benchmark family or source protocol has not been reviewed
    • 1 · Supporting evidence outside the reviewed capability core
    Inspect every observation and exclusion →

    Benchmark results

    These are published benchmark scores. Supported effort estimates also appear on the Capability leaderboard. Results from different harnesses occupy different rows. Missing cells stay unknown; no scores are copied between effort levels.

    Benchmark / sourceMax
    Humanity's Sixth SenseScale · Scale AI + Elorian full-board evaluation; vendor-default temperature and top-p.
    Benchmark details

    Full 522-task pass@1, task mean of three attempts; every rubric criterion must pass. 95% task-cluster bootstrap CI. Claude-Opus-5 judge. Scale AI + Elorian. Unversioned board; source hashes identify captures. Display only. Excluded from weighted Overall.

    Unit: percent. Source collected 2026-10-18.

    30.9%
    Reported settings

    Qwen3.8-Flash (max); Full 522-task pass@1, task mean of three attempts; every rubric criterion must pass. 95% task-cluster bootstrap CI. Claude-Opus-5 judge. Scale AI + Elorian. Unversioned board; source hashes identify captures. Display only. Excluded from weighted Overall. Score 30.9% ±3.3 percentage points; rank 13; board record time 2026-10-06T23:03:39.000Z, not a proven evaluation date. Temperature and top-p use vendor defaults. Public-web media contamination cannot be excluded.

    What these comparisons mean

    Each source reports its own effort labels. Matching labels do not establish equal compute budgets or identical fallback behavior. Open Reported settings to inspect the exact model name, agent and task coverage. Multiple results at one level remain visible rather than selecting the best. Source-reported None or Non-reasoning labels are not treated as evidence that an API supports those settings.

    These measurements use their own dated source collection. The leaderboard fits identified configurations jointly; it contains no pooled model ratings. Explicit thinking budgets are separate configurations. Read the methodology.

    Download all effort benchmark results · 8,916 results across 259 models · Collected 2026-10-18