Qwen3 235B A22B 2507 (Reasoning) vs Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Which is better for the money: Qwen3 235B A22B 2507 (Reasoning) by Alibaba 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 27.2 points higher (39.9 vs 12.7) but costs 11× as much to run the benchmark ($2632 vs $234; flagship vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B when you need intelligence above 12.7, and Qwen3 235B A22B 2507 (Reasoning) when 12.7 is enough.
| Metric | Qwen3 235B A22B 2507 (Reasoning) | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 12.7 | 39.9 | +214.2% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 3.1× more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $233.56 | $2,632.05 | +1026.9% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 11× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 22.73s | 63.76s | +180.5% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 180.5% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.23 / $2.30 | $2.00 / $6.00 | |
| Input modalities | Text | Text |
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs Qwen3 235B A22B 2507 (Reasoning): 214.2% more intelligence, 1026.9% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 180.5% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Qwen3 235B A22B 2507 (Reasoning) 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.
Qwen3 235B A22B 2507 (Reasoning)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/qwen3-235b-a22b-instruct-2507-reasoning/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/qwen3-235b-a22b-instruct-2507-reasoning/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill