Granite Embedding 30m English vs Qwen3.8 Flash
At a Glance
| Compare |  Qwen3.8 FlashQwen | |
|---|---|---|
| Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency | ||
| CostLower is better · Published-token output estimate | UnrankedNot in the 44-model eligible cohort | #4 of 44$0.021 per LiveBench case |
| Pricing and Limits | ||
| Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | Not reported | $0.113Deepinfra ↗ · Sep 23, 2026 |
| Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | Not reported | $0.382Deepinfra ↗ · Sep 23, 2026 |
| Context windowMaximum documented tokens | 1K | 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
Side-by-Side Facts
| Field | granite-embedding-30m-english | Qwen3.8-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | IBM | Qwen |
| Family | Granite Embedding 30m English | Qwen3 8 Flash |
| Model | granite-embedding-30m-english | Qwen3.8-Flash |
| Version | granite-embedding-30m-english | Qwen3.8-Flash |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | 2025-08-29 | Unknown |
| Knowledge cutoff | Unknown | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text | Text, Image, Video |
| Output modalities | Embedding | Text |
| Context window | 1K | 1,000K |
| Total parameters | 30.3M | Unknown |
| Active parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| License | apache-2.0 | Unknown |
| Open weights | Yes | No |
| API available | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | Yes | No |
| Provider access | Hugging Face (Standard) | Alibaba Cloud Model Studio (Standard), Deepinfra (Standard), Openrouter (Standard), Together Ai (Standard) |
| Capabilities | embeddings | agents, chat, computer-use, reasoning, structured_outputs, tools, vision |
Granite Embedding 30m English Capabilities
Qwen3.8 Flash Capabilities
Related Comparisons
| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
| vs |  GPT-6 AstraOpenAI | cross-developer peers | |
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | vs | cross-developer peers | |
 Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | vs | cross-developer peers | |
 DeepSeek-V4.1-FlashDeepSeek | vs | cross-developer peers | |
| vs | Grok 4.6xAI | cross-developer peers | |
| vs | Qwen3.8-MaxQwen | cross-developer peers | |
| vs |  Kimi-K3Moonshot AI | cross-developer peersembedding | |
 MiniMax-M3MiniMax | vs | cross-developer peers | |
| vs |  GLM-5.3Z.ai | cross-developer peers | |
| vs |  Hy4 previewTencent | cross-developer peers | |
Seed 2.1 ProByteDance Seed | vs | cross-developer peers | |
| vs |  Mistral Large 3Mistral AI | cross-developer peers |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
Granite Embedding 30m English vs Qwen3.8 Flash FAQs
Is Granite Embedding 30m English or Qwen3.8 Flash better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Granite Embedding 30m English and Qwen3.8 Flash, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, Granite Embedding 30m English or Qwen3.8 Flash?+
Only Qwen3.8 Flash has a directly sourced input price: $0.113 per million tokens. Only Qwen3.8 Flash has a directly sourced output price: $0.382 per million tokens.
Which has a larger context window, Granite Embedding 30m English or Qwen3.8 Flash?+
Qwen3.8 Flash has the larger sourced context window. Granite Embedding 30m English supports 1K and Qwen3.8 Flash supports 1,000K.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Granite Embedding 30m English or Qwen3.8 Flash?+
There is no overall benchmark winner: At least two independently verified, protocol-matched benchmarks are required for an overall winner.
Can Granite Embedding 30m English or Qwen3.8 Flash be self-hosted?+
Granite Embedding 30m English is the only model in this pair currently marked as self-hostable. Granite Embedding 30m English is open weight; Qwen3.8 Flash is not marked open weight.
Can Granite Embedding 30m English and Qwen3.8 Flash understand images?+
Granite Embedding 30m English is not documented with image input; Qwen3.8 Flash is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, Granite Embedding 30m English or Qwen3.8 Flash?+
Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Granite Embedding 30m English is — and Qwen3.8 Flash is 131K.
Do Granite Embedding 30m English and Qwen3.8 Flash support reasoning and tool use?+
Granite Embedding 30m English: none of these features are definitively sourced. Qwen3.8 Flash: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, Granite Embedding 30m English or Qwen3.8 Flash?+
Granite Embedding 30m English has 1 sourced provider route; Qwen3.8 Flash has 4, so Qwen3.8 Flash has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, Granite Embedding 30m English or Qwen3.8 Flash?+
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.