Muse Wonder (Max) vs Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Which is better for the money: Muse Wonder (Max) 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
Muse Wonder (Max) scores 12.5 points higher (52.4 vs 39.9) but costs 2.2× as much to run the benchmark ($5787 vs $2632; both flagship class). Pick Muse Wonder (Max) when the extra intelligence is worth the premium, otherwise Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B.
| Metric | Muse Wonder (Max) | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 52.4 | 39.9 | −23.9% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 23.9% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $5,786.78 | $2,632.05 | −54.5% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 54.5% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 47.23s | 61.67s | +30.6% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 30.6% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $4.00 / $20.0 | $2.00 / $6.00 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image, Speech, Video | Text |
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs Muse Wonder (Max): 23.9% less intelligence, 54.5% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 30.6% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Muse Wonder (Max) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Opus 5.5 (Xhigh, Default Fallback) scores 56.00 for $4057.
- 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 Wonder (Max)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-wonder/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/muse-wonder/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill