Claude Opus 5.5 (Xhigh, Default Fallback) vs Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Which is better for the money: Claude Opus 5.5 (Xhigh, Default Fallback) 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 2026-10-24.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Claude Opus 5.5 (Xhigh, Default Fallbac… scores 16.1 points higher (56.0 vs 39.9) but costs 1.5× as much to run the benchmark ($4057 vs $2632; both flagship class). Pick Claude Opus 5.5 (Xhigh, Default Fallbac… when the extra intelligence is worth the premium, otherwise Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B.
| Metric | Claude Opus 5.5 (Xhigh, Default Fallback) | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 56.0 | 39.9 | −28.8% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 28.8% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $4,056.65 | $2,632.05 | −35.1% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 35.1% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 123.06s | 61.58s | −50.0% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 50.0% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $4.00 / $20.0 | $2.00 / $6.00 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs Claude Opus 5.5 (Xhigh, Default Fallback): 28.8% less intelligence, 35.1% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 50.0% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Claude Opus 5.5 (Xhigh, Default Fallback) 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 Opus 5.5 (Xhigh, Default Fallback)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-opus-5-5-xhigh/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/claude-opus-5-5-xhigh/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill