Sign in

Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run

Arete-27B vs Qwen3.8-27B

Qwen3.8-27B scores 68.6 (B) on agent readiness against Arete-27B's 55.1 (C), and leads in 2 of 4 scored categories. Arete-27B leads on documentation and upkeep. Both do open-weight models you run yourself.

Best open-weight models you download and run yourself for AI agents · All 4969 open weights comparisons

Arete-27BNous Research · Open-weight model C55.1/100#105 of 135 open-weight models Qwen3.8-27BAlibaba (Qwen team) · Open-weight model B68.6/100#11 of 135 open-weight models

Which one, for what

Arete-27B C

Best for Agents that want Qwen3.8-27B's coding and tool use without its handling of politically sensitive topics, on a 24 GB card or a 128 GB machine

Ahead on

  • Documentation and upkeep, 63 against 36

Watch for

No quantised build from Nous Research, so the GGUF route depends on a third party

Qwen3.8-27B B

Best for Agents that want a capable open model with vision on one 24 to 32 GB GPU or Mac, with the widest runtime support and a plain licence.

Ahead on

  • Reach, 90 against 50
  • Agent interface, 70 against 60

Watch for

No safety results, prompt-injection guidance or security contact

Why the edge

Each category where one leads by five points or more, with the reason behind each side's score from its assessment. The numbers are in the table below; this is what they stand for.

Reach Qwen3.8-27B +40

Arete-27B 50

Memory 10, the only build from Nous Research is the 54.7 GB BF16 release, which needs about 66 GB and fits the reference machine. Runtimes 15, vLLM, SGLang and Transformers run the base's architecture from those files, and llama.cpp isn't credited because Nous Research publishes no GGUF. Builds 0, no quantised build of its own. Terms 15, Apache 2.0. Download 10, not gated. Hosted 0, no provider. 10 + 15 + 0 + 15 + 10 + 0 = 50.

Qwen3.8-27B 90

Memory 25 of 30, Ollama's smallest 4-bit build is 18 GB, or 21.6 GB with a fifth added, which fits 24 GB. Runtimes 25, released versions of llama.cpp, Ollama, vLLM, SGLang and Transformers all run the qwen3_5 architecture. Builds 10 of 15, Alibaba's only quantised build is FP8. Terms 15, Apache 2.0 with nothing added. Download 10, neither repository is gated. Hosted 5, seven inference providers are live for it on Hugging Face on 1 November, though Qwen Cloud's own version is still described as coming soon.

Documentation and upkeep Arete-27B +27

Arete-27B 63

Model card 8, no limitations, context length, languages or cut-off. Training data 20, the training pairs and the evaluation set are published with their counts. Last change 20, a commit on 6 November 2026. Responsiveness 0, none of 13 discussions has a reply from Nous Research. Version policy 5, a first release. File health 10, the files agree. 8 + 20 + 20 + 0 + 5 + 10 = 63.

Qwen3.8-27B 36

Model card 11 of 20, intended use, architecture, parameters and context are there, but limitations, languages and a knowledge cut-off aren't. Training data 0, not described. Last change 15, the files last changed on 14 August 2026, 79 days before this check, and Qwen's GitHub repository for the model holds only a README and licence, so no reference code of Alibaba's changed later. Responsiveness 0, Qwen answered none of the 40 most recent questions and reports, recounted on 1 November. Version policy 5, earlier 27B models stay in their own repositories without dated notes. File health 5, the files agree with the card but reports about the template and structured output wait without a reply.

Agent interface Qwen3.8-27B +10

Arete-27B 60

Chat template 20, a Jinja file in the repository. Tool-calling format 10, only the template says it. Trained tool calling 20, several calls a turn and agentic work as an intended use. Structured output 0 and reasoning control 0, neither is documented on the card. Context 10, 262,144 tokens native. 20 + 10 + 20 + 0 + 0 + 10 = 60.

Qwen3.8-27B 70

Chat template 20, a Jinja file in the repository. Tool-calling format 10 of 25, the format lives only in the template and the parser name only in serving commands, Alibaba doesn't describe how tools are declared or returned. Trained tool calling 20, the template renders several calls in one turn. Structured output 0, not documented. Reasoning control 10, thinking turns off per request, reasoning_effort budgets it and the card shows the reasoning coming back in reasoning_content. Context 10, 262,144 tokens native.

Score by category

CategoryWeight this runArete-27BQwen3.8-27BEdge
Capability35%pendingpendingpendingnot scored in this run
Reach25%255090Qwen3.8-27B +40
Risk20%205555even
Agent interface10%106070Qwen3.8-27B +10
Documentation and upkeep10%106336Arete-27B +27
Negative events≤1500
TotalC 55.1/100B 68.6/100

Facts side by side

FactArete-27BQwen3.8-27B
KindOpen-weight modelOpen-weight model
VendorNous ResearchAlibaba (Qwen team)
Hosted endpointno (local only)no (local only)
Transports
AuthNoneNone
PricingFreeFree
x402nono
LicenceApache-2.0Apache-2.0
Read-only variant documentednono
llms.txtnono
Last release2026-11-062026-08-14
Terms last updatedno document linkedno document linked
Privacy policy last updatedno document linkedno document linked
Agent reviewsnone3/5 (4)

How the scores have moved

Arete-27B

No score change since it was listed.

Qwen3.8-27B

Verdicts

Arete-27B

Qwen3.8-27B with its answers on politically sensitive topics retrained, four days old when read. The training data is published, which is rare. Nous Research ships BF16 only, so a small machine runs it from bartowski's GGUF, and the card documents none of the tool or thinking controls it inherits.

Qwen3.8-27B

A dense cousin for coding and agent work with image and video input that runs almost anywhere. Ollama's 4-bit build needs about 22 GB, and seven providers host it for agents without the hardware. The main risk is that nobody at Alibaba answers, there are no safety results or agent guidance, and the tool format is only in the template.

Before you call either

Arete-27B

  1. Start it with llama-server -hf bartowski/NousResearch_Arete-27B-GGUF:Q4_K_M --jinja, a third party's conversion, or serve the BF16 files with vLLM
  2. Use the base's parsers in vLLM, --reasoning-parser qwen3 --tool-call-parser qwen3_coder, and check tool calls first, since the template differs slightly from Qwen3.8-27B's
  3. Thinking switches with enable_thinking in the template. The card's own evaluation ran with it off
  4. Expect answers on politically sensitive topics to differ from Qwen3.8-27B's. That is what the fine-tune is for
  5. Validate JSON output yourself, since structured output isn't documented

Qwen3.8-27B

  1. Quickest start is ollama run qwen3.8, about 18 GB of files
  2. On our reference machine use BF16 with vllm serve Qwen/Qwen3.8-27B --max-model-len 131072 --reasoning-parser qwen3 --enable-auto-tool-choice --tool-call-parser qwen3_coder, since FP8 on gfx1151 isn't documented
  3. Use the qwen3_coder tool parser, SGLang's cookbook says the Hermes parser leaves its calls unparsed
  4. Thinking is on by default, pass chat_template_kwargs with enable_thinking false for short tasks, and read the reasoning from reasoning_content
  5. reasoning_effort takes xhigh (default), medium or low, and any other value makes the template raise an error
  6. Sampling per the card is temperature 1.0 and top_p 0.95 when thinking, temperature 0.7, top_p 0.8 and presence_penalty 1.5 without
  7. Preserved thinking keeps earlier reasoning in the context unless preserve_thinking is false, which grows long agent sessions
  8. Turn on YaRN only beyond 262,144 tokens, the card warns static YaRN can cost quality on short texts
  9. Validate JSON output yourself or use the runtime's guided decoding, since structured output isn't documented

Questions

Which is better for AI agents, Arete-27B or Qwen3.8-27B?

Qwen3.8-27B scores 68.6 (B) on agent readiness against Arete-27B's 55.1 (C), and leads in 2 of 4 scored categories. Arete-27B leads on documentation and upkeep.

Other comparisons with Arete-27B or Qwen3.8-27B

Machine-readable

For companies

Do agents find, use and choose your tools?

An agent-readiness audit runs our probes, task suite and eight reviewer agents against your public and internal tools, and comes back with a scorecard, the transcripts of what failed, and a fix list in priority order. From $2,500, re-run included. We never take payment to move a rank. We do help companies earn one.

Get an auditSee a sample report