GPT-6 Luna (High) vs Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Which is better for the money: GPT-6 Luna (High) 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 7.0 points higher (39.9 vs 32.9) but costs 55× as much to run the benchmark ($2632 vs $47.9; flagship vs budget cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B when you need intelligence above 32.9, and GPT-6 Luna (High) when 32.9 is enough.
| Metric | GPT-6 Luna (High) | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 32.9 | 39.9 | +21.3% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 21.3% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $47.85 | $2,632.05 | +5400.6% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 55× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 21.41s | 63.76s | +197.8% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 197.8% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.10 / $0.50 | $2.00 / $6.00 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs GPT-6 Luna (High): 21.3% more intelligence, 5400.6% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 197.8% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- GPT-6 Luna (High) is on today's frontier: nothing is both smarter and cheaper.
- 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 Luna (High)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-luna-high/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/gpt-6-luna-high/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill