Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs Beam 1.0
Which is better for the money: Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B by Alibaba or Beam 1.0 by Reflection? 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 9.6 points higher (39.9 vs 30.3) but costs 8.3× as much to run the benchmark ($2632 vs $319; flagship vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B when you need intelligence above 30.3, and Beam 1.0 when 30.3 is enough.
| Metric | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Beam 1.0 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 39.9 | 30.3 | −24.1% Beam 1.0 is 24.1% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $2,632.05 | $318.73 | −87.9% Beam 1.0 is 87.9% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 64.18s | 7.75s | −87.9% Beam 1.0 is 87.9% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $2.00 / $6.00 | $0.40 / $1.20 | |
| Input modalities | Text | Text |
Beam 1.0 vs Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B: 24.1% less intelligence, 87.9% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 87.9% 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.
- Beam 1.0 is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores 46.30 for $207.
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95BBeam 1.0Today'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/reflection-beam · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b/reflection-beam?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill