GPT-6 Astra (High) vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
Which is better for the money: GPT-6 Astra (High) by OpenAI or Qwen3.8-Flash-Next by Alibaba? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-26.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
GPT-6 Astra (High) scores 11.1 points higher (50.9 vs 39.8) but costs 8.1× as much to run the benchmark ($2925 vs $363; flagship vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick GPT-6 Astra (High) when you need intelligence above 39.8, and Qwen3.8-Flash-Next when 39.8 is enough.
| Metric | GPT-6 Astra (High) | Qwen3.8-Flash-Next | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 50.9 | 39.8 | −21.8% Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is 21.8% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $2,925.01 | $362.72 | −87.6% Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is 87.6% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 93.68s | 49.76s | −46.9% Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is 46.9% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $10.0 / $50.0 | $0.15 / $0.47 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image, Video |
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next vs GPT-6 Astra (High): 21.8% less intelligence, 87.6% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 46.9% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- GPT-6 Astra (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.
GPT-6 Astra (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/gpt-6-astra-high/qwen3-8-flash-next · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/gpt-6-astra-high/qwen3-8-flash-next?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill