Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs Ring-2.6-1T
Which is better for the money: Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B by Alibaba or Ring-2.6-1T by InclusionAI? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-26.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B scores 23.3 points higher (39.9 vs 16.6) but costs 4.6× as much to run the benchmark ($2632 vs $576; flagship vs premium cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B when you need intelligence above 16.6, and Ring-2.6-1T when 16.6 is enough.
| Metric | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Ring-2.6-1T | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 39.9 | 16.6 | −58.4% Ring-2.6-1T is 58.4% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $2,632.05 | $575.60 | −78.1% Ring-2.6-1T is 78.1% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 64.84s | 24.22s | −62.6% Ring-2.6-1T is 62.6% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $2.00 / $6.00 | $0.30 / $2.50 | |
| Input modalities | Text | Text |
Ring-2.6-1T vs Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B: 58.4% less intelligence, 78.1% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 62.6% 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.
- Ring-2.6-1T is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (High) scores 50.20 for $521.
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95BRing-2.6-1TToday'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/ring-2-6-1t · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b/ring-2-6-1t?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill