Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Which is better for the money: Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite by Google 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 17.7 points higher (39.9 vs 22.2) but costs 7.2× as much to run the benchmark ($2632 vs $366; flagship vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B when you need intelligence above 22.2, and Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite when 22.2 is enough.
| Metric | Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 22.2 | 39.9 | +79.7% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 79.7% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $365.63 | $2,632.05 | +619.9% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 7.2× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 9.09s | 65.43s | +619.8% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 619.8% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.30 / $2.50 | $2.00 / $6.00 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image, Speech, Video | Text |
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite: 79.7% more intelligence, 619.9% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 619.8% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Medium) scores 47.80 for $361.
- 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.
Gemini 3.5 Flash-LiteQwen3.8 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/gemini-3-5-flash-lite/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/gemini-3-5-flash-lite/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill