GPT-5.6 Luna (Xhigh) vs Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Which is better for the money: GPT-5.6 Luna (Xhigh) by OpenAI or Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B by Alibaba? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-27.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B scores 5.3 points higher (39.9 vs 34.6) but costs 15× as much to run the benchmark ($2632 vs $179; flagship vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B when you need intelligence above 34.6, and GPT-5.6 Luna (Xhigh) when 34.6 is enough.
| Metric | GPT-5.6 Luna (Xhigh) | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 34.6 | 39.9 | +15.3% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 15.3% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $179.33 | $2,632.05 | +1367.7% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 15× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 45.86s | 64.93s | +41.6% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 41.6% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.20 / $1.20 | $2.00 / $6.00 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs GPT-5.6 Luna (Xhigh): 15.3% more intelligence, 1367.7% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 41.6% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- GPT-5.6 Luna (Xhigh) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Terra (Medium) scores 41.30 for $175.
- 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.
GPT-5.6 Luna (Xhigh)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/gpt-5-6-luna-xhigh/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/gpt-5-6-luna-xhigh/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill