GPT-6 Astra (Max) vs Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Which is better for the money: GPT-6 Astra (Max) 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
GPT-6 Astra (Max) scores 12.8 points higher (52.7 vs 39.9) but costs 2.0× as much to run the benchmark ($5324 vs $2632; both flagship class). Pick GPT-6 Astra (Max) when the extra intelligence is worth the premium, otherwise Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B.
| Metric | GPT-6 Astra (Max) | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 52.7 | 39.9 | −24.3% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 24.3% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $5,324.10 | $2,632.05 | −50.6% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 50.6% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 369.90s | 64.93s | −82.4% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 82.4% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $10.0 / $50.0 | $2.00 / $6.00 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs GPT-6 Astra (Max): 24.3% less intelligence, 50.6% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 82.4% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- GPT-6 Astra (Max) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Opus 5.5 (Xhigh, Default Fallback) scores 56.00 for $4057.
- 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 Astra (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/gpt-6-astra/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/gpt-6-astra/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill