Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs Qwen3 Coder Next
Which is better for the money: Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B by Alibaba or Qwen3 Coder Next by Alibaba? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-25.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B scores 30.7 points higher (39.9 vs 9.2) but costs 6.5× as much to run the benchmark ($2632 vs $405; flagship vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B when you need intelligence above 9.2, and Qwen3 Coder Next when 9.2 is enough.
| Metric | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Qwen3 Coder Next | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 39.9 | 9.2 | −76.9% Qwen3 Coder Next is 76.9% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $2,632.05 | $405.10 | −84.6% Qwen3 Coder Next is 84.6% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 62.71s | 6.13s | −90.2% Qwen3 Coder Next is 90.2% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $2.00 / $6.00 | $0.31 / $1.00 | |
| Input modalities | Text | Text |
Qwen3 Coder Next vs Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B: 76.9% less intelligence, 84.6% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 90.2% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- 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 Coder Next is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Medium) scores 47.80 for $361.
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95BQwen3 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/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b/qwen3-coder-next · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b/qwen3-coder-next?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill