Fugu Ultra vs Qwen 3.8

What I tested — same prompt, two models

I run the same fixed prompt set through every new model the day it drops — same string, one shot, single HTML file out — and I score the result 0–10 on whether it ran, how close it hit the brief, and how good it looked. Below is what came out when I gave the exact same prompts to Fugu Ultra and Qwen 3.8, side by side, on 34 shared tasks inside the Agent Operating System.

Both models were given identical prompts inside the Agent Operating System — no help, no iteration, no "best of N" tricks. I run each prompt once, save the HTML file the model produces, and score it 0–10 on whether it ran, how close it hit the brief, and how good it looked. The scoring is mine. The verdicts below are pulled from my source comparison guides at agentos.guide where I publish every score and the reasoning behind it.

Fugu Ultra · Dispatched from Agent OS as the panel-ensemble alternative to OpenRouter Fusion. Bench scored by Claude judge against the same 42 prompts as every other model.

Qwen 3.8 · Benched on GoldieBench via the Qoder CLI (`qoder-qwen`, model Qwen3.8-Max-Preview) — the only door while it has no public API. Non-game tasks are one-shot like the rest of the field. GAME tasks run in Qoder's real AGENT mode: skill-infused build, then up to 2 QA fix rounds where a vision judge + live console errors are fed back and Qwen 3.8 edits its own file (it took crypt from a black-screen 3.0 to a torch-lit 7.8). Scored on a mid-play frame by the same Opus judge as everyone else. This is a partial run — the full 50-task card replaces it when the batch completes.

Where Fugu Ultra beat Qwen 3.8

The tasks where I gave Fugu Ultra a higher 0–10 score on the same prompt — with the actual commentary from my source guides.

Where Qwen 3.8 beat Fugu Ultra

The tasks where I gave Qwen 3.8 a higher 0–10 score on the same prompt — with the actual commentary from my source guides.

Strengths & weaknesses I logged

Pricing & context — the spec sheet

The verdict — which should you pick?

Across 34 scored shared tasks, the averages are essentially tied — Fugu Ultra 7.96 vs Qwen 3.8 8.22. This isn't the comparison where one wins; it's the comparison where you pick based on context, pricing, and what you're actually trying to ship.

If you only run one of these inside your stack, the head-to-head average above is the call. If you can run both, my honest play is to wire Fugu Ultra and Qwen 3.8 both into the Agent Operating System and dispatch each from the kanban by task type — teams that want fusion-class quality but need a different vendor risk profile → Fugu Ultra, one-shot 3d game and world prototypes where atmosphere matters → Qwen 3.8. That's the same setup I run for the 4,000+ founders inside the AI Profit Boardroom.

FAQ — Fugu Ultra vs Qwen 3.8

Which is better, Fugu Ultra or Qwen 3.8?

On Goldie Bench, Fugu Ultra averages 7.96/10 across the shared tasks, with 5 gold, 2 silver, 4 bronze overall. Qwen 3.8 averages 8.22/10, with 10 gold, 9 silver, 5 bronze. Qwen 3.8 wins the head-to-head 24–9.

How much does Fugu Ultra cost vs Qwen 3.8?

Fugu Ultra: Sakana's multi-agent orchestration: a single API call internally dispatches to multiple frontier models and synthesises the answer. Subscription plans run $20-$200/mo (Standard / Pro / Max); PAYG is $5/M input + $30/M output for Fugu Ultra. Direct competitor to OpenRouter Fusion's panel approach. Qwen 3.8: Qwen3.8-Max-Preview is Alibaba's ~2.4T-parameter flagship, positioned just behind Claude Fable 5. It is NOT on OpenRouter or a public API yet — the only access today is inside Qoder (Alibaba's agentic coding platform, free 2-week Pro trial). Benched here via the Qoder CLI on model `Qwen3.8-Max-Preview`, one-shot.

What's the context window for Fugu Ultra vs Qwen 3.8?

Fugu Ultra has a 272,000 tokens with the standard rate. Calls exceeding 272K context are billed at the higher 'long-context' rates. context window. Qwen 3.8 has a Served through Alibaba's Qoder agent platform; the 3.8-Max preview has no standalone public context window yet. context window.

When should I pick Fugu Ultra over Qwen 3.8?

Pick Fugu Ultra for: Teams that want Fusion-class quality but need a different vendor risk profile; Operators avoiding export-controlled providers (Sakana emphasises this in their pitch); Deep-research workflows where ensemble verdicts beat single-model answers. The trade-off is the weaknesses we logged on the bench: Panel orchestration adds latency — even a 'pong' burns ~2k orchestration tokens; Newer than Fusion; less community calibration on long-tail prompts.

When should I pick Qwen 3.8 over Fugu Ultra?

Pick Qwen 3.8 for: One-shot 3D game and world prototypes where atmosphere matters; Anyone already in the Qoder IDE/CLI wanting a near-frontier model free on the Pro trial; A cheaper stand-in for Fable 5 on creative-visual builds. The trade-off is the weaknesses we logged on the bench: Torch-lit dungeon (crypt) came out generic (6.3); one open-world RPG one-shot black-screened (twilightvale 2.5) — classic three.js r128 API drift; Preview is Qoder / Token-Plan only — no OpenRouter or public API, so it can't be routed into an app the way the OpenRouter models can.

How does Goldie Bench score Fugu Ultra vs Qwen 3.8?

Every demo on this page was built by Julian Goldie inside the Agent Operating System — same fixed prompt for both models, one shot, single HTML file out. Each result gets a 0–10 score on whether it ran, how close it hit the brief, and how good it looked. The highest score on each task gets gold; second gets silver; third gets bronze. See methodology for full provenance.

Related comparisons

Other head-to-heads using the same scoring system:

Full model pages: Fugu Ultra · Qwen 3.8 · back to the leaderboard