Qwen 3.8 vs Fugu Ultra 1.1

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 Qwen 3.8 and Fugu Ultra 1.1, side by side, on 20 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.

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.

Fugu Ultra 1.1 · Benched on GoldieBench via Sakana's Responses API (fugu-ultra-v1.1, xhigh reasoning). Game tasks use the skill-infused threejs-game-director prompt plus a controls+graphics fix loop with an anti-regression clamp, judged on a real mid-play frame by the same Opus judge as the field.

Where Qwen 3.8 beat Fugu Ultra 1.1

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.

Where Fugu Ultra 1.1 beat Qwen 3.8

The tasks where I gave Fugu Ultra 1.1 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 19 scored shared tasks, Qwen 3.8 averaged 7.94/10, beating Fugu Ultra 1.1's 7.49/10 by 0.45 points. Pick Qwen 3.8 when the build has to ship on the first prompt and you can afford the trade-offs in the comparison below.

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 Qwen 3.8 and Fugu Ultra 1.1 both into the Agent Operating System and dispatch each from the kanban by task type — one-shot 3d game and world prototypes where atmosphere matters → Qwen 3.8, hard, high-stakes coding and reasoning where answer quality beats latency → Fugu Ultra 1.1. That's the same setup I run for the 4,000+ founders inside the AI Profit Boardroom.

FAQ — Qwen 3.8 vs Fugu Ultra 1.1

Which is better, Qwen 3.8 or Fugu Ultra 1.1?

On Goldie Bench, Qwen 3.8 averages 7.94/10 across the shared tasks, with 8 gold, 7 silver, 7 bronze overall. Fugu Ultra 1.1 averages 7.49/10, with 0 gold, 1 silver, 2 bronze. Qwen 3.8 wins the head-to-head 10–6.

How much does Qwen 3.8 cost vs Fugu Ultra 1.1?

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. Fugu Ultra 1.1: Sakana's Fugu Ultra v1.1 — a multi-agent system served as a model: an orchestrator routes each request across one to three expert agents and synthesises the answer. Reported (v1.0): SWE-Bench Pro 73.7, LiveCodeBench 93.2, GPQA Diamond 95.5. NOTE: Sakana geo-blocks the EU/EEA/UK/Switzerland pending GDPR compliance — benched from an allowed region.

What's the context window for Qwen 3.8 vs Fugu Ultra 1.1?

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. Fugu Ultra 1.1 has a 1,000,000-token context window context window.

When should I pick Qwen 3.8 over Fugu Ultra 1.1?

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.

When should I pick Fugu Ultra 1.1 over Qwen 3.8?

Pick Fugu Ultra 1.1 for: Hard, high-stakes coding and reasoning where answer quality beats latency; Agentic workflows in Codex / Claude Code via the drop-in provider config; One-shot builds you want a panel of experts on, not a single model. The trade-off is the weaknesses we logged on the bench: Benched as a partial run until the full 50-task batch completes; Region-locked: unavailable across the EU/EEA/UK/CH — access depends on where you are.

How does Goldie Bench score Qwen 3.8 vs Fugu Ultra 1.1?

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: Qwen 3.8 · Fugu Ultra 1.1 · back to the leaderboard