Muse Spark 1.2 (Xhigh) vs Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Which is better for the money: Muse Spark 1.2 (Xhigh) 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 0.3 points higher (39.9 vs 39.6) but costs 1.9× as much to run the benchmark ($2632 vs $1385; flagship vs premium cost classes). Pick Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B when the extra intelligence is worth the premium, otherwise Muse Spark 1.2 (Xhigh).
| Metric | Muse Spark 1.2 (Xhigh) | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 39.6 | 39.9 | +0.8% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 0.8% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $1,385.40 | $2,632.05 | +90.0% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 90.0% more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 20.76s | 61.67s | +197.1% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 197.1% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $1.25 / $4.25 | $2.00 / $6.00 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image, Speech, Video | Text |
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs Muse Spark 1.2 (Xhigh): 0.8% more intelligence, 90.0% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 197.1% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Muse Spark 1.2 (Xhigh) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Max) scores 51.80 for $1082.
- 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 Spark 1.2 (Xhigh)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-spark-1-2/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/muse-spark-1-2/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill