DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 (Max) vs Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Which is better for the money: DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 (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 5.6 points higher (39.9 vs 34.3) but costs 13× as much to run the benchmark ($2632 vs $200; flagship vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B when you need intelligence above 34.3, and DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 (Max) when 34.3 is enough.
| Metric | DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 (Max) | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 34.3 | 39.9 | +16.3% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 16.3% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $199.63 | $2,632.05 | +1218.5% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 13× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 18.29s | 65.43s | +257.7% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 257.7% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.14 / $0.28 | $2.00 / $6.00 | |
| Input modalities | Text | Text |
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 (Max): 16.3% more intelligence, 1218.5% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 257.7% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 (Max) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Haiku 5.5 (Xhigh) scores 41.20 for $158.
- 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 0731 (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/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/deepseek-v4-flash/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill