Nemotron 3.5 Super VL vs Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Which is better for the money: Nemotron 3.5 Super VL by NVIDIA 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 13.4 points higher (39.9 vs 26.5) but costs 9.3× as much to run the benchmark ($2632 vs $283; flagship vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B when you need intelligence above 26.5, and Nemotron 3.5 Super VL when 26.5 is enough.
| Metric | Nemotron 3.5 Super VL | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 26.5 | 39.9 | +50.6% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 50.6% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $282.51 | $2,632.05 | +831.7% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 9.3× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 6.35s | 64.93s | +922.5% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 922.5% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.23 / $0.57 | $2.00 / $6.00 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs Nemotron 3.5 Super VL: 50.6% more intelligence, 831.7% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 922.5% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Nemotron 3.5 Super VL is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores 46.30 for $207.
- 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.
Nemotron 3.5 Super VLQwen3.8 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/nemotron-3-5-super-vl/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/nemotron-3-5-super-vl/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill