GPT-6 Luna (High) vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
Which is better for the money: GPT-6 Luna (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
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next scores 6.9 points higher (39.8 vs 32.9) but costs 7.6× as much to run the benchmark ($363 vs $47.9; mid-range vs budget cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Qwen3.8-Flash-Next when you need intelligence above 32.9, and GPT-6 Luna (High) when 32.9 is enough.
| Metric | GPT-6 Luna (High) | Qwen3.8-Flash-Next | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 32.9 | 39.8 | +21.0% Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is 21.0% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $47.85 | $362.72 | +658.0% Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is 7.6× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 21.44s | 49.76s | +132.1% Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is 132.1% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.10 / $0.50 | $0.15 / $0.47 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image, Video |
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next vs GPT-6 Luna (High): 21.0% more intelligence, 658.0% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 132.1% 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-Flash-Next is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Medium) scores 47.80 for $361.
GPT-6 Luna (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-luna-high/qwen3-8-flash-next · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/gpt-6-luna-high/qwen3-8-flash-next?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill