GPT-6.1 Terra (Low) vs Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Which is better for the money: GPT-6.1 Terra (Low) 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 3.7 points higher (39.9 vs 36.2) but costs 23× as much to run the benchmark ($2632 vs $115; flagship vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B when you need intelligence above 36.2, and GPT-6.1 Terra (Low) when 36.2 is enough.
| Metric | GPT-6.1 Terra (Low) | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 36.2 | 39.9 | +10.2% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 10.2% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $114.52 | $2,632.05 | +2198.3% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 23× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 6.80s | 64.93s | +854.9% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 854.9% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $1.00 / $5.00 | $2.00 / $6.00 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs GPT-6.1 Terra (Low): 10.2% more intelligence, 2198.3% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 854.9% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- GPT-6.1 Terra (Low) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, MiMo-V2.6-Flash scores 37.90 for $110.
- 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-6.1 Terra (Low)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-6-1-terra-low/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/gpt-6-1-terra-low/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill