Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B Verdict
- Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B leads on quality: 65.2 vs 61.6.
- Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is stronger in agents & tools, composite, knowledge, long context, reasoning.
- Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is stronger in coding, multimodal.
- Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is 13× cheaper ($0.230 vs $3.00 per 1M blended).
- Qwen3.8-Flash-Next streams 1.5× faster (55 vs 38 tokens per second).
| Metric | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Qwen3.8-Flash-Next |
|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 65.2 | 61.6 |
| Agents & tools score | 78.3 | 65.8 |
| Composite score | 79.8 | 67.4 |
| Knowledge score | 66.3 | 59.6 |
| Long context score | 66.6 | 66.3 |
| Reasoning score | 80.5 | 63.4 |
| Coding score | – | 71.2 |
| Multimodal score | – | 64.3 |
| Blended price $/M | $3.00 | $0.230 |
| Output speed | 38 tok/s | 55 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | 55.2 s | 39.0 s |
| Context window | 984k | 256k |
| LMArena WebDev | – | 1635 |
| LMArena Agent | – | -0.1 |
| LiveBench | – | 76.2% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | – | 87.4% |
| LiveBench Coding | – | 72.5% |
| LiveBench Agentic Coding | – | 61.6% |
| LiveBench Mathematics | – | 85.8% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | – | 74.2% |
| LiveBench Language | – | 74.6% |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | – | 77.1% |
| AA Intelligence Index | 40.0 | 39.9 |
| AA-LCR | 80.3% | 79.7% |
| MMMU-Pro | – | 79.8% |
| AA-Omniscience | 4.3 | -9.7 |
| GPQA Diamond (AA) | 93.5% | 92.3% |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | 42.5% | 38.0% |
| SciCode (AA) | 54.0% | 50.6% |
| CritPt | 20.0% | 11.1% |
| GDPval (AA) | 56.4% | 57.4% |
| τ²-Bench Banking (AA) | 49.1% | 45.4% |
Data as of 2026-09-19. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next: questions
- Is Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B better than Qwen3.8-Flash-Next?
- Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B leads on quality: 65.2 vs 61.6. The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is ahead overall as of 2026-09-19, but check the category scores for your use.
- Is Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B better than Qwen3.8-Flash-Next for agentic tasks?
- Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B scores higher in agentic tasks (78 vs 66 on the category index, where 50 is average).
- Which is cheaper, Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B or Qwen3.8-Flash-Next?
- Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is cheaper: $0.230 against $3.00 per million tokens, blended at three input tokens per output token.
- Which is faster, Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B or Qwen3.8-Flash-Next?
- Qwen3.8-Flash-Next streams faster: 55 against 38 output tokens per second.
- Which has the larger context window?
- Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B accepts more context: 984k against 256k tokens.