OCR 4.1 vs Qwen3.8 Flash
At a Glance
| Compare |  OCR 4.1Mistral AI |  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 21, 2026 |
| Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | Not reported | $0.382Deepinfra ↗ · Sep 21, 2026 |
| Context windowMaximum documented tokens | Not reported | 1,000K |
| Model facts checked | Aug 29, 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 | OCR 4.1 | Qwen3.8-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Mistral AI | Qwen |
| Family | Mistral OCR | Qwen3 8 Flash |
| Model | OCR 4.1 | Qwen3.8-Flash |
| Version | OCR 4.1 | Qwen3.8-Flash |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | 2026-07-16 | Unknown |
| Knowledge cutoff | Unknown | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Image, Document | Text, Image, Video |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | Unknown | 1,000K |
| Total parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| Active parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| License | Unknown | Unknown |
| Open weights | No | No |
| API available | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | No | No |
| Provider access | Mistral AI (Standard) | Alibaba Cloud Model Studio (Standard), Deepinfra (Standard), Openrouter (Standard), Together Ai (Standard) |
| Capabilities | bounding-box-extraction, document-ai, ocr, structured-annotations | agents, chat, computer-use, reasoning, structured_outputs, tools, vision |
OCR 4.1 Capabilities
Qwen3.8 Flash Capabilities
Related Comparisons
All image comparisons →| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
OCR 4.1Mistral AI | vs |  GPT-6 AstraOpenAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | vs | OCR 4.1Mistral AI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
 Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | vs | OCR 4.1Mistral AI | cross-developer peerstext |
 DeepSeek-V4.1-FlashDeepSeek | vs | OCR 4.1Mistral AI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
OCR 4.1Mistral AI | vs | Grok 4.6xAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
OCR 4.1Mistral AI | vs | Qwen3.8-MaxQwen | cross-developer peersimage, text |
OCR 4.1Mistral AI | vs |  Kimi-K3Moonshot AI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
 MiniMax-M3MiniMax | vs | OCR 4.1Mistral AI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
OCR 4.1Mistral AI | vs |  GLM-5.3Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext |
OCR 4.1Mistral AI | vs |  Hy4 previewTencent | cross-developer peerstext |
Seed 2.1 ProByteDance Seed | vs | OCR 4.1Mistral AI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Mistral Large 3Mistral AI | vs | OCR 4.1Mistral AI | developer peersimage, text |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
OCR 4.1 vs Qwen3.8 Flash FAQs
Is OCR 4.1 or Qwen3.8 Flash better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both OCR 4.1 and Qwen3.8 Flash, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, OCR 4.1 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, OCR 4.1 or Qwen3.8 Flash?+
Neither model has a larger sourced context window in this comparison. OCR 4.1 is — and Qwen3.8 Flash is 1,000K.
Which performs better in benchmarks, OCR 4.1 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 OCR 4.1 or Qwen3.8 Flash be self-hosted?+
Both models have the same recorded self-hosting status: unsupported. OCR 4.1 is not marked open weight; Qwen3.8 Flash is not marked open weight.
Can OCR 4.1 and Qwen3.8 Flash understand images?+
OCR 4.1 is 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, OCR 4.1 or Qwen3.8 Flash?+
Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. OCR 4.1 is — and Qwen3.8 Flash is 131K.
Do OCR 4.1 and Qwen3.8 Flash support reasoning and tool use?+
OCR 4.1: image input. Qwen3.8 Flash: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, OCR 4.1 or Qwen3.8 Flash?+
OCR 4.1 has 1 sourced provider route; Qwen3.8 Flash has 4, so Qwen3.8 Flash has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, OCR 4.1 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.