Claude Haiku 5.5 (High) vs Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Which is better for the money: Claude Haiku 5.5 (High) by Anthropic or Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B by Alibaba? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-27.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B scores 2.1 points higher (39.9 vs 37.8) but costs 28× as much to run the benchmark ($2632 vs $94.1; flagship vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B when you need intelligence above 37.8, and Claude Haiku 5.5 (High) when 37.8 is enough.
| Metric | Claude Haiku 5.5 (High) | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 37.8 | 39.9 | +5.6% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 5.6% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $94.07 | $2,632.05 | +2698.0% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 28× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 27.77s | 64.93s | +133.8% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 133.8% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.10 / $0.50 | $2.00 / $6.00 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs Claude Haiku 5.5 (High): 5.6% more intelligence, 2698.0% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 133.8% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Claude Haiku 5.5 (High) is on today's frontier: nothing is both smarter and cheaper.
- 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.
Claude Haiku 5.5 (High)Qwen3.8 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/claude-haiku-5-5-high/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/claude-haiku-5-5-high/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill