pi 0.7 vs Qwen3.8 Max

At a Glance

Compare
pi 0.7Physical Intelligence
Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency
IntelligenceHigher is better · MM Intelligence v2.5UnrankedNot 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 estimateUnrankedNot in the 44-model eligible cohort#23 of 44$0.107 per LiveBench case
EfficiencyHigher is better · MM Efficiency v1.5UnrankedNot 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
Context windowMaximum documented tokensNot reported1,000K
Model facts checkedAug 29, 2026View model evidence →Aug 29, 2026View model evidence →
Different Model RolesThese models do not share a sourced market category. Their primary-source facts remain comparable below, while performance claims require matched evidence.

Available Benchmarks

All benchmark results →
No Protocol-Matched Benchmark Yet.Results appear here only when both models share the same benchmark version, metric, evaluation protocol, and evidence class.

Side-by-Side Facts

Fieldpi 0.7Qwen3.8-Max
DeveloperPhysical IntelligenceQwen
FamilypiQwen3 8 Max
Modelpi 0.7Qwen3.8-Max
Version0.7Qwen3.8-Max
Lifecycleactiveactive
Released2026-04-16Unknown
Knowledge cutoffUnknownUnknown
Input modalitiesText, Image, Robot stateText, Image, Video
Output modalitiesRobot actionText
Context windowUnknown1,000K
Total parametersUnknown2.4T
Active parametersUnknownUnknown
LicenseUnknownUnknown
Open weightsNoNo
API availableUnknownYes
Self-hostableUnknownNo
Provider accessUnknownAlibaba Cloud Model Studio (Standard), Deepinfra (Standard), Fireworks Ai (Standard), Openrouter (Standard)
Capabilitiescross-embodiment, dexterous-manipulation, language-steering, visual-subgoalsagents, chat, reasoning, structured_outputs, tools, vision
Robotics model typeVision-language-action modelUnknown
Action representationContinuous robot actions conditioned by multimodal promptsUnknown
Control architectureHigh-level policy, world model, and action expertUnknown
Inference locationUnknownUnknown
Native control rate (Hz)UnknownUnknown
Supported embodimentsmobile manipulators, bimanual UR5e, multiple fixed manipulatorsUnknown
Training dataRobot demonstrations, autonomous data, egocentric human data, and multimodal web data described by the publisher.Unknown

pi 0.7 Capabilities

cross-embodimentdexterous-manipulationlanguage-steeringvisual-subgoals
Model typeVision-language-action model
InferenceUnknown
Action representationContinuous robot actions conditioned by multimodal prompts
Supported embodiments3
Canonical IDphysical-intelligence/pi-0.7

Qwen3.8 Max Capabilities

agentschatreasoningstructured outputstoolsvision
Model typeUnknown
InferenceUnknown
Action representationUnknown
Supported embodimentsUnknown
Canonical IDqwen/qwen3.8-max

Primary Evidence

Sources and Freshness

Questions

pi 0.7 vs Qwen3.8 Max FAQs

Is pi 0.7 or Qwen3.8 Max better for coding?+

This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both pi 0.7 and Qwen3.8 Max, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.

Which is cheaper, pi 0.7 or Qwen3.8 Max?+

Only Qwen3.8 Max has a directly sourced input price: $1.65 per million tokens. Only Qwen3.8 Max has a directly sourced output price: $4.951 per million tokens.

Which has a larger context window, pi 0.7 or Qwen3.8 Max?+

Neither model has a larger sourced context window in this comparison. pi 0.7 is — and Qwen3.8 Max is 1,000K.

Which performs better in benchmarks, pi 0.7 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 pi 0.7 or Qwen3.8 Max be self-hosted?+

Neither model is the only model in this pair currently marked as self-hostable. pi 0.7 is not marked open weight; Qwen3.8 Max is not marked open weight.

Can pi 0.7 and Qwen3.8 Max understand images?+

pi 0.7 is 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, pi 0.7 or Qwen3.8 Max?+

Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. pi 0.7 is — and Qwen3.8 Max is 131K.

Do pi 0.7 and Qwen3.8 Max support reasoning and tool use?+

pi 0.7: image input. Qwen3.8 Max: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.

Which is available from more inference providers, pi 0.7 or Qwen3.8 Max?+

pi 0.7 has 0 sourced provider routes; Qwen3.8 Max has 4, so Qwen3.8 Max has broader tracked availability.

Which offers better value, pi 0.7 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.

Send Feedback