New Sign up free, 10 calls on us. Up to $1, no card needed.

GPT-6 Astra vs Qwen3.8 Max

vs

Which one, when

While both models process text and image inputs with reasoning capabilities, qwen3.8-max is priced much lower at $2 per million input tokens and $6 per million output tokens compared to gpt-6-astra at $10 and $50. Choose qwen3.8-max to minimize costs or to leverage its slightly higher 131072 maximum output. Opt for gpt-6-astra if your workload requires its larger 1050000 context window or the specific ability to disable the thinking step.

Benchmarks

Above averageNo peer higherGPT-6 Astraonly 4 comparableQwen3.8 Max30 / 398 / 39
GPT-6 Astra Qwen3.8 Max other models measured peer average no peer scored higher
SWE-Bench Pro
N/A
67.7%
AndroidBench
N/A
75.1%
Cybergym
N/A
78.5%
HealthBench
58.1%
no peer scored higher 60.2%
GDPval-AA v2 Elo · 1508-1769 per Z.ai · 2026-09-04
N/A
1739
PLawBench
N/A
no peer scored higher 73.2%
GPQA Diamond
N/A
92.6%
Agents' Last Exam
N/A
27%

Vendor-published: Alibaba (Qwen) Anthropic ByteDance DeepSeek Google MiniMax Moonshot OpenAI Tencent Z.ai

Pricing

GPT-6 Astra Qwen3.8 Max Δ
Input / 1M tokens $10 $2
Output / 1M tokens $50 $6 8.3×
Cache read / 1M tokens $1 $0.25
Cache write no separate charge 1.25x -

Rates from the live catalog at build time; each model page carries the current card.

Where they sit - input price per 1M tokens across all 68 chat models on this billing unit (log scale)

GPT-6 Astra · $10 Qwen3.8 Max · $2
$0.05 · Qwen3 VL Flash $30 · GPT-5.4 Pro

Capabilities

GPT-6 Astra Qwen3.8 Max
Tool use yes yes
Thinking control configurable yes - vendor dial not published
Structured output yes yes
Prompt caching implicit (automatic) implicit + explicit
Cache lifetime 5-10m, up to 1h explicit: 5m, reset on hit
Minimum cached prefix 1024 tokens 1024 tokens

Specs

GPT-6 Astra Qwen3.8 Max
Input modalities text image text image
Output modalities text text
Released 2026-09-03 2026-08-03
Knowledge cutoff 2026-04 -
Context window 1.1M 984K
Max output 128K 131K
Thinking parameter reasoning.effort -
Accepted values
reasoning.effort
  • none
  • low
  • medium
  • high
  • xhigh
  • max
-
Default medium -

Specs are transcribed from each vendor’s documentation; a row a vendor does not publish is left out rather than inferred. Full sources: GPT-6 Astra · Qwen3.8 Max

One prompt, both models - measured through the gateway

PROMPT Explain to a CFO, in exactly three sentences, why our LLM bill doubled after we enabled reasoning. CHECK exactly 3 sentences

GPT-6 Astra passed · 3 sentences

Enabling reasoning makes the model do more work per request, often generating internal reasoning tokens that are billed even though they do not appear in the final answer. If traffic, model choice, and pricing stayed the same, those extra tokens likely explain why our bill doubled—not longer answers or more users. We should verify the usage breakdown, then reserve higher reasoning levels for tasks where improved results justify the added cost.

out 283 tok (+196 thinking) latency 17.2 s

Qwen3.8 Max passed · 3 sentences

Enabling reasoning makes the model produce additional hidden steps before responding, and those tokens are billable. It also tends to lengthen each interaction because the model works through more possibilities before settling on an answer. Therefore, the bill doubled mainly due to higher compute and token usage per request, not necessarily because the number of requests doubled.

out 378 tok (+305 thinking) latency 8.6 s

Instruction following (exactly three sentences - countable), audience shaping (CFO register), and the hidden-thinking billing gap the token meters below expose.

PROMPT This function is supposed to return the longest run of consecutive equal items, but callers report it is off by one on single-element inputs and misses runs that end at the last index. Fix it and explain the bug in one paragraph. CHECK fix passes tests

GPT-6 Astra passed · 8/8 cases

```python def longest_run(xs): if not xs: return 0 best = cur = 1 for i in range(1, len(xs)): if xs[i] == xs[i - 1]: cur += 1 else: cur = 1 best = max(best, cur) return best ``` The original code counts equal adjacent pairs rather than items, so every nonempty run is undercounted by one: a single-element input returns `0`, and a run of three equal items returns `2`. Starting and resetting `cur` to `1` counts the first item of each run, while the empty-input check preserves a result of `0`. Updating `best` after each iteration includes runs ending at the last index without needing a final flush; the original also updated during trailing runs, but undercounted them.

out 321 tok (+131 thinking) latency 13.5 s

Qwen3.8 Max passed · 8/8 cases

```python def longest_run(xs): if not xs: return 0 best = cur = 1 for i in range(1, len(xs)): if xs[i] == xs[i - 1]: cur += 1 else: cur = 1 best = max(best, cur) return best ``` The bug is that the original code starts `best` and `cur` at `0`, so it counts adjacent equal *transitions* rather than the number of items in the run. A run of length `n` has only `n - 1` equal-neighbor transitions, so single-element inputs return `0`, and runs that reach the end are undercounted by one. Initializing the current run to `1` for the first element, resetting it to `1` on a break, and updating `best` from that count fixes the off-by-one.

out 1616 tok (+1411 thinking) latency 34.7 s

Whether the fix is actually correct (runnable), explanation density, and token efficiency on a bounded task.

PROMPT Extract a JSON object with fields {company, quarter, revenue_usd_m, growth_pct, guidance} from this text. Use null for anything not stated; add no other fields. CHECK valid JSON, schema exact

GPT-6 Astra passed · 5/5 fields, guidance "Formal guidance is withheld pending the "

{ "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": null, "growth_pct": "eleven and change", "guidance": "Formal guidance is withheld pending the Q4 close." }

out 329 tok (+267 thinking) latency 16.9 s

Qwen3.8 Max passed · 5/5 fields, guidance null

{ "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": 11, "guidance": null }

out 1199 tok (+1141 thinking) latency 24.4 s

Schema obedience (no invented fields), hallucination pressure (guidance is explicitly withheld), and structured-output path differences.

PROMPT Write a 120-word product announcement for an API gateway feature that caches prompts across providers. Forbidden words: "seamless", "unlock", "game-changer", "revolutionize", "empower". Exactly one sentence must be a question. CHECK 120 words, 0 banned words

GPT-6 Astra passed · 120 words, 0 banned, 1 question

Introducing Cross Provider Prompt Cache, a new API gateway feature that reuses eligible prompt content across supported AI providers. Why pay to process the same context every time? Configure caching once at the gateway, then route requests between models while keeping shared instructions, reference material, and conversation prefixes ready for reuse. Caching controls let teams set expiration windows, isolate tenants, and exclude sensitive content. Cache analytics show hit rates, estimated savings, and latency trends, helping developers tune performance with confidence. Existing routing policies continue to work, so adoption fits your current architecture. Start with a single application, measure the results, and expand as needed. Available today in the dashboard and API, with documentation and examples to guide your first deployment.

out 665 tok (+516 thinking) latency 19.3 s

Qwen3.8 Max passed · 120 words, 0 banned, 1 question

Today, our API gateway adds prompt caching across major model providers. It stores prompts and responses in one fast cache layer. Teams can lower token spend, reduce latency, and repeat reliable answers. The feature supports OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and Mistral through one configuration. You can set retention rules, scope access, and invalidate entries quickly. How does your team maintain consistent results during provider outages? Approved cached responses keep applications stable while fallback routes recover. The dashboard shows hit rates, savings, latency, and provider usage. Engineers receive audit trails for every cached prompt, enabling safer testing. Product managers can compare cost trends before and after cache adoption. Start with a small route, then safely expand caching to production traffic right now.

out 2744 tok (+2591 thinking) latency 46.3 s

Constraint obedience (word budget, banned-word list, the single question), style fingerprint, and length control.

Switch between them with one line

Both ids are in every tab below - the highlighted pair of lines is the only edit. Same endpoint, same key, same request shape.

from openai import OpenAI

client = OpenAI(
    base_url="https://synthorai.io/v1",
    api_key="sk-syn-...",
)

resp = client.chat.completions.create(
    model="gpt-6-astra",
    # model="qwen3.8-max",  # uncomment this line, comment the one above
    messages=[{"role": "user", "content": "Summarize this diff"}],
    reasoning_effort="medium",
)
print(resp.choices[0].message.content)

Get your API key →

FAQ

Which is cheaper, GPT-6 Astra or Qwen3.8 Max?

Qwen3.8 Max is cheaper on input / 1m tokens ($2 vs $10, 5.0× apart). Other rows may point the other way - the table above carries the full card, and real cost depends on your mix.

Can I A/B test GPT-6 Astra against Qwen3.8 Max without two integrations?

Yes. Both are served through the same OpenAI-compatible endpoint with one API key - switching is a one-line model-string change, so you can route a fraction of traffic to each and compare bills directly.

Do GPT-6 Astra and Qwen3.8 Max support prompt caching?

Yes - both bill cached reads below their input rate, so warm-prefix workloads cost less than the list rates suggest. The exact cache-read rows are in the pricing table above.

Related comparisons

From our measured studies