gpt-oss-20b vs Qwen3.8 Max
At a Glance
| Compare |  gpt-oss-20bOpenAI |  Qwen3.8 MaxQwen |
|---|---|---|
| Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency | ||
| IntelligenceHigher is better · MM Intelligence v2.5 | UnrankedNot in the 46-model eligible cohort | #10 of 4679.2 score · 2/3 sources · provisional · missing ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 52.8–86.1 |
| CostLower is better · Published-token output estimate | UnrankedNot in the 44-model eligible cohort | #23 of 44$0.107 per LiveBench case |
| EfficiencyHigher is better · MM Efficiency v1.5 | UnrankedNot in the 38-model eligible cohort | #6 of 3863.2 score · 2/3 sources · provisional · missing ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 50.0–66.7 |
| Pricing and Limits | ||
| Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $0.030Deepinfra ↗ · Sep 22, 2026 | $1.65Deepinfra ↗ · Sep 22, 2026 |
| Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $0.13Openrouter ↗ · Sep 22, 2026 | $4.951Deepinfra ↗ · Sep 22, 2026 |
| Context windowMaximum documented tokens | 131K | 1,000K |
| Model facts checked | Aug 28, 2026View model evidence → | Aug 29, 2026View model evidence → |
Token prices are the lowest available sourced USD rates; input and output may use different providers. Cost ranking estimates output spend on LiveBench, not a full request bill. Ranking methodology →
Available Benchmarks
| Benchmark | gpt-oss-20b | Qwen3.8-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-09-13-d25aabda0010 · arena_rating · leader | 1,287.3287% of row best · rating · gpt-oss-20b; 95% CI [1280.92242279, 1293.71473349]; votes 10393; rank 246 | 1,480.55100% of row best · rating · qwen3.8-max; 95% CI [1474.79040793, 1486.31846927]; votes 16670; rank 14 |
| Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above | 0 benchmark winsNo overall winner | 1 benchmark winNo overall winner |
Third-party benchmark Only like-for-like primary-publisher results are shown; raw scores, relative scores, configuration, and token spend remain visible.
Side-by-Side Facts
| Field | gpt-oss-20b | Qwen3.8-Max |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | OpenAI | Qwen |
| Family | Gpt Oss | Qwen3 8 Max |
| Model | gpt-oss-20b | Qwen3.8-Max |
| Version | gpt-oss-20b | Qwen3.8-Max |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | Unknown | Unknown |
| Knowledge cutoff | Unknown | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text | Text, Image, Video |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 131K | 1,000K |
| Total parameters | 20.9B | 2.4T |
| Active parameters | 3.6B | Unknown |
| License | apache-2.0 | Unknown |
| Open weights | Yes | No |
| API available | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | Yes | No |
| Provider access | Deepinfra (Standard), Groq (Standard), Hugging Face (Standard), Openrouter (Standard), Together Ai (Serverless, Standard) | Alibaba Cloud Model Studio (Standard), Deepinfra (Standard), Fireworks Ai (Standard), Openrouter (Standard) |
| Capabilities | chat, generation, reasoning, tools | agents, chat, reasoning, structured_outputs, tools, vision |
gpt-oss-20b Capabilities
Qwen3.8 Max Capabilities
Related Comparisons
All text comparisons →| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
GPT-6 AstraOpenAI | vs | gpt-oss-20bOpenAI | family variantstext |
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | vs | gpt-oss-20bOpenAI | cross-developer peerstext |
 Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | vs | gpt-oss-20bOpenAI | cross-developer peerstext |
 DeepSeek-V4.1-FlashDeepSeek | vs | gpt-oss-20bOpenAI | cross-developer peerstext |
gpt-oss-20bOpenAI | vs | Grok 4.6xAI | cross-developer peerstext |
 Kimi-K3Moonshot AI | vs | gpt-oss-20bOpenAI | cross-developer peerstext |
 MiniMax-M3MiniMax | vs | gpt-oss-20bOpenAI | cross-developer peerstext |
gpt-oss-20bOpenAI | vs |  GLM-5.3Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext |
gpt-oss-20bOpenAI | vs |  Hy4 previewTencent | cross-developer peerstext |
Seed 2.1 ProByteDance Seed | vs | gpt-oss-20bOpenAI | cross-developer peerstext |
 Mistral Large 3Mistral AI | vs | gpt-oss-20bOpenAI | cross-developer peerstext |
| vs | gpt-oss-20bOpenAI | cross-developer peerstext |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
gpt-oss-20b vs Qwen3.8 Max FAQs
Is gpt-oss-20b or Qwen3.8 Max better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both gpt-oss-20b and Qwen3.8 Max, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, gpt-oss-20b or Qwen3.8 Max?+
gpt-oss-20b is $0.030 and Qwen3.8 Max is $1.65 per million tokens, so gpt-oss-20b is cheaper on this metric. gpt-oss-20b is $0.13 and Qwen3.8 Max is $4.951 per million tokens, so gpt-oss-20b is cheaper on this metric.
Which has a larger context window, gpt-oss-20b or Qwen3.8 Max?+
Qwen3.8 Max has the larger sourced context window. gpt-oss-20b supports 131K and Qwen3.8 Max supports 1,000K.
Which performs better in benchmarks, gpt-oss-20b or Qwen3.8 Max?+
There is no overall benchmark winner: At least two independently verified, protocol-matched benchmarks are required for an overall winner.
Can gpt-oss-20b or Qwen3.8 Max be self-hosted?+
gpt-oss-20b is the only model in this pair currently marked as self-hostable. gpt-oss-20b is open weight; Qwen3.8 Max is not marked open weight.
Can gpt-oss-20b and Qwen3.8 Max understand images?+
gpt-oss-20b is not documented with image input; Qwen3.8 Max is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, gpt-oss-20b or Qwen3.8 Max?+
Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. gpt-oss-20b is — and Qwen3.8 Max is 131K.
Do gpt-oss-20b and Qwen3.8 Max support reasoning and tool use?+
gpt-oss-20b: reasoning and tool calling. Qwen3.8 Max: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, gpt-oss-20b or Qwen3.8 Max?+
gpt-oss-20b has 5 sourced provider routes; Qwen3.8 Max has 4, so gpt-oss-20b has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, gpt-oss-20b or Qwen3.8 Max?+
There is no universal value winner. Compare the input and output prices above with the matched benchmark result for your workload: cheaper tokens can be offset by different quality, token usage, latency, or provider availability.