GLM-5.2 (Max) vs Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Which is better for the money: GLM-5.2 (Max) by Z AI 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 6.2 points higher (39.9 vs 33.7) but costs 1.3× as much to run the benchmark ($2632 vs $2097; both flagship class). Pick Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B when the extra intelligence is worth the premium, otherwise GLM-5.2 (Max).
| Metric | GLM-5.2 (Max) | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 33.7 | 39.9 | +18.4% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 18.4% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $2,097.29 | $2,632.05 | +25.5% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 25.5% more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 29.81s | 65.43s | +119.5% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 119.5% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $1.40 / $4.40 | $2.00 / $6.00 | |
| Input modalities | Text | Text |
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs GLM-5.2 (Max): 18.4% more intelligence, 25.5% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 119.5% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- GLM-5.2 (Max) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Max) scores 51.80 for $1082.
- 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.
GLM-5.2 (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/glm-5-2/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/glm-5-2/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill