GPT-6.1 Terra (Low) vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
Which is better for the money: GPT-6.1 Terra (Low) by OpenAI or Qwen3.8-Flash-Next 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-Flash-Next scores 3.6 points higher (39.8 vs 36.2) but costs 3.2× as much to run the benchmark ($363 vs $115; both mid-range class). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Qwen3.8-Flash-Next 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-Flash-Next | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 36.2 | 39.8 | +9.9% Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is 9.9% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $114.52 | $362.72 | +216.7% Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is 3.2× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 6.78s | 49.52s | +630.4% Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is 630.4% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $1.00 / $5.00 | $0.15 / $0.47 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image, Video |
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next vs GPT-6.1 Terra (Low): 9.9% more intelligence, 216.7% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 630.4% 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-Flash-Next is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Medium) scores 47.80 for $361.
GPT-6.1 Terra (Low)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/gpt-6-1-terra-low/qwen3-8-flash-next · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/gpt-6-1-terra-low/qwen3-8-flash-next?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill