ZMIME
Comparison · 3 models · Updated Nov 2, 2026

Ember-1 vs GPT-5.6 Cyber vs Qwen 3.8 Max Prime

Too close to call on our weighted score (Qwen 3.8 Max Prime 39, Ember-1 36, GPT-5.6 Cyber 30). The right pick depends on what you value most.

  1. Fireworks AI

    Ember-1

    Released Sep 22, 2026New

    36/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$3.00 / $15.00
    • Context1.05M
  2. OpenAI

    GPT-5.6 Cyber

    Released Aug 7, 2026

    30/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$12.50 / $75.00
    • Context400K
  3. Alibaba (Qwen)

    Qwen 3.8 Max Prime

    Released Sep 23, 2026New

    39/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$4.00 / $12.00
    • Context1M
01 — Verdict

Too close to call

It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 3 points (Qwen 3.8 Max Prime 39/100, Ember-1 36/100, GPT-5.6 Cyber 30/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Ember-1 on price and Ember-1 for long inputs. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.

  • CapabilityNot enough dataNo independent benchmark covers every model here yet
  • Lowest priceEmber-1 and Qwen 3.8 Max PrimeEmber-1 $6.00 · Qwen 3.8 Max Prime $6.00 · GPT-5.6 Cyber $28.13 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextEmber-1Ember-1 1,048,576 · Qwen 3.8 Max Prime 1,000,000 · GPT-5.6 Cyber 400,000 tokens
  • Widest inputsQwen 3.8 Max PrimeEmber-1: Text, Images · GPT-5.6 Cyber: Text, Images · Qwen 3.8 Max Prime: Text, Images, Video
  • Self-hostingNo open weightsAll three are available only through APIs
How the score is built
MeasureWeightEmber-1GPT-5.6 CyberQwen 3.8 Max Prime
Price50%12012
Inputs & features30%607070
Context window20%614460
Overall100%36/10030/10039/100

Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.

02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.

Ember-1 vs GPT-5.6 Cyber vs Qwen 3.8 Max Prime specifications side by side
SpecificationEmber-1Fireworks AIGPT-5.6 CyberOpenAIQwen 3.8 Max PrimeAlibaba (Qwen)
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)———
ECI rank———
Price per million tokens
Input$3.00 (best)$12.50$4.00
Output$15.00$75.00$12.00 (best)
Cached input—$1.25—
Blended (3:1)$6.00 (best)$28.13$6.00 (best)
Long-context rateSame rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceMedian of 7 providersOfficial OpenAI APIMedian of 5 providers
Limits
Context window1,048,576 tokens (best)400,000 tokens1,000,000 tokens
Max output131,072 tokens (best)128,000 tokens131,072 tokens (best)
Inputs and features
TextYesYesYes
ImagesYesYesYes
PDFsNoNoNo
AudioNoNoNo
VideoNoNoYes
ReasoningYesYeslow · medium · high · xhigh · maxYes
Tool callingYesYesYes
Structured outputNoYesNo
Availability
WeightsProprietaryProprietaryProprietary
API model ID—gpt-daybreak-red-latest—
API providers7 (best)15
ReleasedSep 22, 2026Aug 7, 2026Sep 23, 2026
Knowledge cutoff—Feb 16, 2026—
03 — Cost

What would a month cost?

Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.

  • Ember-1$60.00
  • GPT-5.6 Cyber$275.00
  • Qwen 3.8 Max Prime$64.00
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Ember-1, GPT-5.6 Cyber or Qwen 3.8 Max Prime?

It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 3 points (Qwen 3.8 Max Prime 39/100, Ember-1 36/100, GPT-5.6 Cyber 30/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Ember-1 on price and Ember-1 for long inputs. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.

Which is cheaper, Ember-1, GPT-5.6 Cyber or Qwen 3.8 Max Prime?

Ember-1 is cheaper at $3.00 input / $15.00 output per million tokens (median across 7 API providers). Qwen 3.8 Max Prime costs $4.00 input / $12.00 output per million tokens (median across 5 API providers); GPT-5.6 Cyber costs $12.50 input / $75.00 output per million tokens (official OpenAI API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $6.00 per million tokens for Ember-1 versus $6.00 for Qwen 3.8 Max Prime (1× as much) and $28.13 for GPT-5.6 Cyber (4.7× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Ember-1 has not been scored yet, GPT-5.6 Cyber has not been scored yet and Qwen 3.8 Max Prime has not been scored yet.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Ember-1, GPT-5.6 Cyber and Qwen 3.8 Max Prime yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. All three support tool calling for agent workflows.

Which has the bigger context window?

Ember-1 has the largest context window at 1,048,576 tokens, against 1,000,000 for Qwen 3.8 Max Prime and 400,000 for GPT-5.6 Cyber. Maximum output per response: Ember-1 up to 131,072, GPT-5.6 Cyber up to 128,000, Qwen 3.8 Max Prime up to 131,072 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Ember-1 accepts text and images; GPT-5.6 Cyber accepts text and images; Qwen 3.8 Max Prime accepts text, images and video. Qwen 3.8 Max Prime handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

No. Ember-1, GPT-5.6 Cyber and Qwen 3.8 Max Prime are proprietary and only available through APIs and apps.

Which is newer?

Qwen 3.8 Max Prime is the newest, released Sep 23, 2026. Ember-1 came out Sep 22, 2026; GPT-5.6 Cyber came out Aug 7, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: GPT-5.6 Cyber Feb 16, 2026.

How do you decide the winner?

Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Nov 2, 2026.