Gemini 4 Argon (High) vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
Which is better for the money: Gemini 4 Argon (High) by Google or Qwen3.8-Flash-Next by Alibaba? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-25.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Gemini 4 Argon (High) scores 12.8 points higher (52.6 vs 39.8) but costs 6.6× as much to run the benchmark ($2407 vs $363; flagship vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Gemini 4 Argon (High) when you need intelligence above 39.8, and Qwen3.8-Flash-Next when 39.8 is enough.
| Metric | Gemini 4 Argon (High) | Qwen3.8-Flash-Next | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 52.6 | 39.8 | −24.3% Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is 24.3% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $2,407.24 | $362.72 | −84.9% Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is 84.9% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 64.86s | 50.52s | −22.1% Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is 22.1% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $2.00 / $10.0 | $0.15 / $0.47 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image, Video |
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next vs Gemini 4 Argon (High): 24.3% less intelligence, 84.9% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 22.1% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Gemini 4 Argon (High) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Opus 5.5 (High, Default Fallback) scores 53.60 for $2172.
- Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Medium) scores 47.80 for $361.
Gemini 4 Argon (High)Qwen3.8-Flash-NextToday'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-4-argon/qwen3-8-flash-next · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/gemini-4-argon/qwen3-8-flash-next?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill