Claude Opus 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback) vs Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Which is better for the money: Claude Opus 5.5 (Max, 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 2026-10-27.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Claude Opus 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback) scores 17.7 points higher (57.6 vs 39.9) but costs 3.3× as much to run the benchmark ($8708 vs $2632; both flagship class). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Claude Opus 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback) when you need intelligence above 39.9, and Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B when 39.9 is enough.
| Metric | Claude Opus 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback) | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 57.6 | 39.9 | −30.7% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 30.7% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $8,708.20 | $2,632.05 | −69.8% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 69.8% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 746.46s | 64.93s | −91.3% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 91.3% 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 (Max, Default Fallback): 30.7% less intelligence, 69.8% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 91.3% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Claude Opus 5.5 (Max, 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 (Max, 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/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/claude-opus-5-5/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill