Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs Solar Pro 3
Which is better for the money: Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B by Alibaba or Solar Pro 3 by Upstage? 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 32.1 points higher (39.9 vs 7.8) but costs 17× as much to run the benchmark ($2632 vs $159; flagship vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B when you need intelligence above 7.8, and Solar Pro 3 when 7.8 is enough.
| Metric | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Solar Pro 3 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 39.9 | 7.8 | −80.5% Solar Pro 3 is 80.5% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $2,632.05 | $159.22 | −94.0% Solar Pro 3 is 94.0% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 61.67s | 18.36s | −70.2% Solar Pro 3 is 70.2% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $2.00 / $6.00 | $0.15 / $0.60 | |
| Input modalities | Text | Text |
Solar Pro 3 vs Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B: 80.5% less intelligence, 94.0% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 70.2% 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.
- Solar Pro 3 is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Haiku 5.5 (Xhigh) scores 41.20 for $158.
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95BSolar Pro 3Today'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/solar-pro-3 · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b/solar-pro-3?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill