DeepSeek V4 Flash 0420 (High) vs Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Which is better for the money: DeepSeek V4 Flash 0420 (High) by DeepSeek 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 15.5 points higher (39.9 vs 24.4) but costs 18× as much to run the benchmark ($2632 vs $144; flagship vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B when you need intelligence above 24.4, and DeepSeek V4 Flash 0420 (High) when 24.4 is enough.
| Metric | DeepSeek V4 Flash 0420 (High) | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 24.4 | 39.9 | +63.5% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 63.5% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $144.48 | $2,632.05 | +1721.7% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 18× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | Not reported | 63.76s | — not comparable |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.11 / $0.23 | $2.00 / $6.00 | |
| Input modalities | Text | Text |
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs DeepSeek V4 Flash 0420 (High): 63.5% more intelligence, 1721.7% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and end-to-end time not fully reported.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- DeepSeek V4 Flash 0420 (High) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6 Luna (Max) scores 38.10 for $122.
- 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.
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0420 (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/deepseek-v4-flash-0420-high/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/deepseek-v4-flash-0420-high/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill