Celeris-1 vs Qwen3.8 27B (Xhigh)
Which is better for the money: Celeris-1 by Celeris or Qwen3.8 27B (Xhigh) 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 27B (Xhigh) scores 27.4 points higher (33.7 vs 6.3) but costs 22× as much to run the benchmark ($1336 vs $60.0; premium vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Qwen3.8 27B (Xhigh) when you need intelligence above 6.3, and Celeris-1 when 6.3 is enough.
| Metric | Celeris-1 | Qwen3.8 27B (Xhigh) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 6.3 | 33.7 | +434.9% Qwen3.8 27B (Xhigh) is 5.3× more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $59.99 | $1,336.09 | +2127.2% Qwen3.8 27B (Xhigh) is 22× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 0.87s | 61.59s | +6979.3% Qwen3.8 27B (Xhigh) is 6979.3% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.20 / $0.70 | $0.50 / $3.00 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image, Video |
Qwen3.8 27B (Xhigh) vs Celeris-1: 434.9% more intelligence, 2127.2% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 6979.3% 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 27B (Xhigh) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Max) scores 51.80 for $1082.
Celeris-1Qwen3.8 27B (Xhigh)Today'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/qwen3-8-27b · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/celeris-1/qwen3-8-27b?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill