Celeris-1 vs Qwen3 Coder Next
Which is better for the money: Celeris-1 by Celeris or Qwen3 Coder Next by Alibaba? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-09-01.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Qwen3 Coder Next scores 8.9 points higher (21.3 vs 12.4) but costs 1.6× as much to run the benchmark ($250 vs $157; both mid-range class). Pick Qwen3 Coder Next when the extra intelligence is worth the premium, otherwise Celeris-1.
| Metric | Celeris-1 | Qwen3 Coder Next | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 12.4 | 21.3 | +71.8% Qwen3 Coder Next is 71.8% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $156.79 | $250.18 | +59.6% Qwen3 Coder Next is 59.6% more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 0.93s | 4.49s | +382.8% Qwen3 Coder Next is 382.8% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.20 / $0.70 | $0.35 / $1.20 | |
| Input modalities | Not reported | Not reported |
Qwen3 Coder Next vs Celeris-1: 71.8% more intelligence, 59.6% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 382.8% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Celeris-1 is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GLM-5.3-Flash scores 57.50 for $138.
- Qwen3 Coder Next is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GLM-5.3-Flash scores 57.50 for $138.
Celeris-1Qwen3 Coder NextToday'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-coder-next · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/celeris-1/qwen3-coder-next?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill