Celeris-1 vs Qwen3.8 Max (0902)
Which is better for the money: Celeris-1 by Celeris or Qwen3.8 Max (0902) by Alibaba? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-24.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Qwen3.8 Max (0902) scores 39.1 points higher (45.4 vs 6.3) but costs 82× as much to run the benchmark ($4935 vs $60.0; flagship vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Qwen3.8 Max (0902) when you need intelligence above 6.3, and Celeris-1 when 6.3 is enough.
| Metric | Celeris-1 | Qwen3.8 Max (0902) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 6.3 | 45.4 | +620.6% Qwen3.8 Max (0902) is 7.2× more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $59.99 | $4,934.79 | +8126.0% Qwen3.8 Max (0902) is 82× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 0.87s | 63.23s | +7167.8% Qwen3.8 Max (0902) is 7167.8% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.20 / $0.70 | $2.00 / $6.00 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image |
Qwen3.8 Max (0902) vs Celeris-1: 620.6% more intelligence, 8126.0% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 7167.8% 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 Max (0902) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Opus 5.5 (Xhigh, Default Fallback) scores 56.00 for $4057.
Celeris-1Qwen3.8 Max (0902)Today's Pareto 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-max · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/celeris-1/qwen3-8-max?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill