Gemini 3.5 Flash (High) vs Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Which is better for the money: Gemini 3.5 Flash (High) 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.
Clear winner
Verdict
Pick Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs Gemini 3.5 Flash (High): 22.4% more intelligence, 37.7% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 291.6% slower end-to-end.
| Metric | Gemini 3.5 Flash (High) | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 32.6 | 39.9 | +22.4% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 22.4% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $4,222.12 | $2,632.05 | −37.7% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 37.7% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 16.71s | 65.43s | +291.6% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 291.6% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $1.50 / $9.00 | $2.00 / $6.00 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image, Speech, Video | Text |
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Gemini 3.5 Flash (High) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Opus 5.5 (Xhigh, Default Fallback) scores 56.00 for $4057.
- 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 (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/gemini-3-5-flash/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/gemini-3-5-flash/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill