Claude Sonnet 5.5 (Xhigh, Default Fallback) vs Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Which is better for the money: Claude Sonnet 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 2026-10-27.
Clear winner
Verdict
Pick Claude Sonnet 5.5 (Xhigh, Default Fallback)
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs Claude Sonnet 5.5 (Xhigh, Default Fallback): 23.1% less intelligence, 20.9% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 92.1% slower end-to-end.
| Metric | Claude Sonnet 5.5 (Xhigh, Default Fallback) | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 51.9 | 39.9 | −23.1% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 23.1% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $2,176.82 | $2,632.05 | +20.9% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 20.9% more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 33.80s | 64.93s | +92.1% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 92.1% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $2.00 / $10.0 | $2.00 / $6.00 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Claude Sonnet 5.5 (Xhigh, Default Fallback) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Opus 5.5 (High, Default Fallback) scores 53.60 for $2172.
- 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 Sonnet 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-sonnet-5-5-xhigh/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/claude-sonnet-5-5-xhigh/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill