AI model comparison
Beam 1.0 501B A23B vs Qwen3.8 27B
Side by side comparison of Beam 1.0 501B A23B and Qwen3.8 27B on pricing, benchmark scores, context window, and more.
Beam 1.0 is Reflection's open-weight reasoning model for coding and long-horizon agentic workflows.
- Input / 1M
- $0.25
- Output / 1M
- $1
- Context
- 1.05M
Qwen3.8 27B is an open-weight dense vision-language model from Qwen.
- Input / 1M
- $0.15
- Output / 1M
- $1.88
- Context
- 1.02M
Comparing image generators? Compare image models
At a glance
Quick verdict
How the two models stack up on the things people ask about most.
Lower price
Beam 1.0 501B A23B
1.2x cheaper for a typical chat
Higher intelligence score
Qwen3.8 27B
20.1 vs 17.7 on Artificial Analysis
Larger context window
Beam 1.0 501B A23B
1.05M vs 1.02M tokens
Newer release
Beam 1.0 501B A23B
Released October 16, 2026
Benchmarks
Benchmark scores
Independent scores from Artificial Analysis. Higher is better.
Intelligence index
Beam 1.0 501B A23B17.7Qwen3.8 27B20.1Coding index
Beam 1.0 501B A23BNot availableQwen3.8 27B68.1Agentic index
Beam 1.0 501B A23BNot availableQwen3.8 27B45.8Pricing
Beam 1.0 501B A23B vs Qwen3.8 27B API pricing
Per-token API rates. Cheaper option highlighted.
| Metric | Beam 1.0 501B A23B | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Input tokensPer 1M tokens | $0.25 | $0.15 |
| Output tokensPer 1M tokens | $1 | $1.88 |
| Cached input (read)Per 1M tokens | $0.05 | $0.04 |
| Cache writePer 1M tokens | Not available | Not available |
What it costs in practice
Estimated cost per 1,000 requests at standard rates. Coding and long-document figures also show the cost when the input is already cached.
Chat message
2K in, 500 out
Beam 1.0 501B A23B$1Qwen3.8 27B$1.24Coding task
30K in, 4K out
Beam 1.0 501B A23B$11.50$5.50 cachedQwen3.8 27B$12$8.63 cachedLong document summary
150K in, 2K out
Beam 1.0 501B A23B$39.50$9.50 cachedQwen3.8 27B$26.25$9.38 cachedSpecs
Context window and capabilities
How much each model can read, how much it can write, and what it accepts as input.
| Metric | Beam 1.0 501B A23B | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Context window | 1.05M tokens | 1.02M tokens |
| Max output | 131K tokens | 236K tokens |
| Input types | Text | Image, Text, Video |
| Output types | Text | Text |
| Reasoning effort levels | Max, Extra high, High, Medium, Low | Extra high, Medium, Low, None |
| Default reasoning effort | Max | Extra high |
| Release date | October 16, 2026 | August 14, 2026 |
Features
Supported features
API features available for each model.
| Metric | Beam 1.0 501B A23B | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Tool calling | Supported | Supported |
| Structured outputs | Supported | Supported |
| JSON mode | Supported | Supported |
| Reasoning | Supported | Supported |
| Temperature | Supported | Supported |
| Stop sequences | Supported | Supported |
| Deterministic seed | Supported | Supported |
| Verbosity control | Not supported | Not supported |
Keep exploring
More on these models
Other head-to-heads, the full model page, and the alternatives list for each model.
Beam 1.0 501B A23BView full model details- Beam 1.0 501B A23B vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
- Beam 1.0 501B A23B vs GPT-6 Luna
- Beam 1.0 501B A23B vs DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
- Beam 1.0 501B A23B vs MiniMax M3
- Beam 1.0 501B A23B vs Kimi K3
- Beam 1.0 501B A23B vs Nemotron 3.5 Super VL
- Beam 1.0 501B A23B vs Inkling Small
- Beam 1.0 501B A23B vs Inkling
- Beam 1.0 501B A23B vs Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite
- Beam 1.0 501B A23B vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
Qwen3.8 27BView full model details- Qwen3.8 27B vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
- Qwen3.8 27B vs Hy4 preview
- Qwen3.8 27B vs GPT-6 Luna
- Qwen3.8 27B vs Step 5 Preview
- Qwen3.8 27B vs Mistral Large 4
- Qwen3.8 27B vs Muse Spark Open
- Qwen3.8 27B vs DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813
- Qwen3.8 27B vs Kimi K3
- Qwen3.8 27B vs MiniMax M3
- Qwen3.8 27B vs Nemotron 3.5 Super VL
- Qwen3.8 27B vs Inkling Small
- Qwen3.8 27B vs Inkling
- Qwen3.8 27B vs Nemotron 3 Ultra
- Qwen3.8 27B vs Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite
- Qwen3.8 27B vs Step 3.7 Flash
- Qwen3.8 27B vs Qwen3.6 35B A3B
- Qwen3.8 27B vs MiMo-V2.5
- Qwen3.8 27B vs MiMo-V2.5-Pro
Our take
Beam 1.0 501B A23B is 1.2x cheaper for a typical chat. Qwen3.8 27B scores higher on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index (20.1 vs 17.7). Beam 1.0 501B A23B has the larger context window (1.05M vs 1.02M tokens). The right pick depends on your workload, so the quickest way to settle it is to send the same prompt to both and compare.
FAQ
Frequently asked questions
Is Beam 1.0 501B A23B or Qwen3.8 27B cheaper?
Beam 1.0 501B A23B is cheaper for a typical chat (2K input tokens and 500 output tokens). Beam 1.0 501B A23B costs $0.25 per 1M input tokens and $1 per 1M output tokens, while Qwen3.8 27B costs $0.15 per 1M input tokens and $1.88 per 1M output tokens.
Which has a bigger context window, Beam 1.0 501B A23B or Qwen3.8 27B?
Beam 1.0 501B A23B supports up to 1.05M tokens of context, compared with 1.02M for Qwen3.8 27B.
Is Beam 1.0 501B A23B smarter than Qwen3.8 27B?
On the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, Beam 1.0 501B A23B scores 17.7 and Qwen3.8 27B scores 20.1, putting Qwen3.8 27B ahead. Benchmarks don't capture everything, so the best test is running your own prompts through both.
Can I use Beam 1.0 501B A23B and Qwen3.8 27B at the same time?
Yes. Shortcut Chat sends one prompt to multiple models at once, so you can see Beam 1.0 501B A23B and Qwen3.8 27B answer side by side and keep the better response.
Why choose? Ask both.
Send one prompt to Beam 1.0 501B A23B and Qwen3.8 27B at the same time. Compare the answers side by side and keep the best one.