MiniMax-M3 vs Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Which is better for the money: MiniMax-M3 by MiniMax 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 10.7 points higher (39.9 vs 29.2) but costs 4.9× as much to run the benchmark ($2632 vs $538; flagship vs premium cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B when you need intelligence above 29.2, and MiniMax-M3 when 29.2 is enough.
| Metric | MiniMax-M3 | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 29.2 | 39.9 | +36.6% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 36.6% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $537.98 | $2,632.05 | +389.2% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 4.9× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 24.10s | 63.76s | +164.6% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 164.6% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.30 / $1.20 | $2.00 / $6.00 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image, Video | Text |
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs MiniMax-M3: 36.6% more intelligence, 389.2% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 164.6% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- MiniMax-M3 is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (High) scores 50.20 for $521.
- 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.
MiniMax-M3Qwen3.8 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/minimax-m3/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/minimax-m3/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill