Muse Glimmer (High) vs Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Which is better for the money: Muse Glimmer (High) by Meta or Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B by Alibaba? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-26.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B scores 22.4 points higher (39.9 vs 17.5) but costs 18× as much to run the benchmark ($2632 vs $146; flagship vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B when you need intelligence above 17.5, and Muse Glimmer (High) when 17.5 is enough.
| Metric | Muse Glimmer (High) | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 17.5 | 39.9 | +128.0% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 2.3× more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $145.77 | $2,632.05 | +1705.6% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 18× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 24.87s | 61.67s | +148.0% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 148.0% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.30 / $1.20 | $2.00 / $6.00 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs Muse Glimmer (High): 128.0% more intelligence, 1705.6% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 148.0% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Muse Glimmer (High) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6 Luna (Max) scores 38.10 for $122.
- 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.
Muse Glimmer (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/muse-glimmer/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/muse-glimmer/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill