Claude Haiku 5.5 (Low) vs Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Which is better for the money: Claude Haiku 5.5 (Low) 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 10.4 points higher (39.9 vs 29.5) but costs 77× as much to run the benchmark ($2632 vs $34.3; flagship vs budget cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B when you need intelligence above 29.5, and Claude Haiku 5.5 (Low) when 29.5 is enough.
| Metric | Claude Haiku 5.5 (Low) | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 29.5 | 39.9 | +35.3% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 35.3% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $34.31 | $2,632.05 | +7571.4% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 77× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 10.81s | 64.00s | +492.0% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 492.0% 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 (Low): 35.3% more intelligence, 7571.4% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 492.0% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Claude Haiku 5.5 (Low) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6 Luna (Medium) scores 29.90 for $31.2.
- 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 (Low)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-low/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/claude-haiku-5-5-low/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill