Quasar 438B (max, based on GLM-5.2) vs Qwen3 Coder Next
Which is better for the money: Quasar 438B (max, based on GLM-5.2) by Multiverse Computing or Qwen3 Coder Next by Alibaba? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-09-09.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Quasar 438B (max, based on GLM-5.2) scores 17.0 points higher (27.1 vs 10.1) but costs 5.3× as much to run the benchmark ($2504 vs $476; flagship vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Quasar 438B (max, based on GLM-5.2) when you need intelligence above 10.1, and Qwen3 Coder Next when 10.1 is enough.
| Metric | Quasar 438B (max, based on GLM-5.2) | Qwen3 Coder Next | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 27.1 | 10.1 | −62.7% Qwen3 Coder Next is 62.7% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $2,503.70 | $476.03 | −81.0% Qwen3 Coder Next is 81.0% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 16.15s | 5.52s | −65.8% Qwen3 Coder Next is 65.8% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.60 / $1.80 | $0.35 / $1.20 | |
| Input modalities | Not reported | Not reported |
Qwen3 Coder Next vs Quasar 438B (max, based on GLM-5.2): 62.7% less intelligence, 81.0% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 65.8% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Quasar 438B (max, based on GLM-5.2) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6 Astra (medium) scores 49.70 for $2434.
- Qwen3 Coder Next is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GLM-5.3-Flash scores 41.90 for $280.
Quasar 438B (max, based on GLM-5.2)Qwen3 Coder NextToday'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/quasar-438b/qwen3-coder-next · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/quasar-438b/qwen3-coder-next?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill