DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Max) vs Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Which is better for the money: DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Max) 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 2026-10-26.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B scores 5.1 points higher (39.9 vs 34.8) but costs 2.4× as much to run the benchmark ($2632 vs $1081; flagship vs premium cost classes). Pick Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B when the extra intelligence is worth the premium, otherwise DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Max).
| Metric | DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Max) | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 34.8 | 39.9 | +14.7% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 14.7% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $1,081.42 | $2,632.05 | +143.4% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 2.4× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 15.95s | 65.43s | +310.2% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 310.2% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.44 / $1.32 | $2.00 / $6.00 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Max): 14.7% more intelligence, 143.4% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 310.2% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Max) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Xhigh) scores 51.00 for $662.
- 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 Vision (Max)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-vision/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/deepseek-v4-flash-vision/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill