Celeris-1 vs Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Which is better for the money: Celeris-1 by Celeris or Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B by Alibaba? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-25.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B scores 33.6 points higher (39.9 vs 6.3) but costs 44× as much to run the benchmark ($2632 vs $60.0; flagship vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B when you need intelligence above 6.3, and Celeris-1 when 6.3 is enough.
| Metric | Celeris-1 | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 6.3 | 39.9 | +533.3% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 6.3× more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $59.99 | $2,632.05 | +4287.5% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 44× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 0.86s | 64.18s | +7362.8% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 7362.8% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.20 / $0.70 | $2.00 / $6.00 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs Celeris-1: 533.3% more intelligence, 4287.5% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 7362.8% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Celeris-1 is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Haiku 5.5 (Medium) scores 34.50 for $56.4.
- Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Opus 5.5 (High, Default Fallback) scores 53.60 for $2172.
Celeris-1Qwen3.8 2.4T A95BToday's Pareto frontierOpen-weights frontierEvery other model
Matchup
Compare something else
Agents:
Accept: text/markdown or ?format=md returns this page as Markdown. JSON: /api/v1/compare/celeris-1/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/celeris-1/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill