Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Thinking

Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B leads Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Thinking on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 39.9 to 11.2, and Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Thinking costs 5.0x less per output token ($1.20 vs $6.00 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 2 benchmarks have a result for both.

Qwen3.8 2.4T A95BQwen
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$6.00
2
Qwen3 Next 80B A3B ThinkingQwen
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$1.20
0
vs boards won of 2 shared

Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B or Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Thinking: which to pick

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B for a larger context window (1.05M against 262K tokens).

Shared results
2
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B only
7
Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Thinking only
28
Like-for-like categories
2 of 9

Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.

Which one for your work

Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.

At a glance

Coding index
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B not benchmarked, Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Thinking not benchmarked.
Widest category
Coding, 54.5 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
AA Coding Index: Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B 71.9 against Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Thinking 17.4, 54.5 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B $6.00 against Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Thinking $1.20 per million output tokens, 5.0x apart.
Context window
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B takes 1.05M tokens, Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Thinking 262K.

Benchmark by benchmark

First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryQwen3.8 2.4T A95BBarsQwen3 Next 80B A3B ThinkingTies
Coding10
Intelligence10
All shared boards20
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index10
Coding benchmarks for Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B and Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Thinking
BenchmarkQwen3.8 2.4T A95BQwen3 Next 80B A3B ThinkingLeader
AA Coding Index71.917.4Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
SciCode54.1%Not measuredOnly Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B measured
LMArena Text: codingNot measured1392Only Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Thinking measured
LMArena Text: software and ITNot measured1393Only Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Thinking measured
Neither model has a result on the other 39 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Intelligence benchmarks for Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B and Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Thinking
BenchmarkQwen3.8 2.4T A95BQwen3 Next 80B A3B ThinkingLeader
AA Intelligence Index39.911.2Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B and Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Thinking
BenchmarkQwen3.8 2.4T A95BQwen3 Next 80B A3B ThinkingLeader
AA Agentic Index50.1Not measuredOnly Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B measured
MCP Atlas84.5%Not measuredOnly Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 40 boards here
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards, none shared
Reasoning benchmarks for Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B and Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Thinking
BenchmarkQwen3.8 2.4T A95BQwen3 Next 80B A3B ThinkingLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)93.5%Not measuredOnly Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)42.4%Not measuredOnly Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B measured
LMArena Text: hard promptsNot measured1371Only Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Thinking measured
LMArena Text: expertNot measured1376Only Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Thinking measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in EnglishNot measured1384Only Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Thinking measured
Neither model has a result on the other 18 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index3 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B and Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Thinking
BenchmarkQwen3.8 2.4T A95BQwen3 Next 80B A3B ThinkingLeader
LMArena Text: mathNot measured1399Only Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Thinking measured
LMArena Text: mathematical workNot measured1390Only Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Thinking measured
MathArena31.6%Not measuredOnly Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index4 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B and Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Thinking
BenchmarkQwen3.8 2.4T A95BQwen3 Next 80B A3B ThinkingLeader
LMArena Text: scienceNot measured1384Only Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Thinking measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcareNot measured1392Only Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Thinking measured
LMArena Text: legal and governmentNot measured1364Only Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Thinking measured
LMArena Text: business and financeNot measured1360Only Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Thinking measured
Neither model has a result on the other 16 boards here
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B and Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Thinking
BenchmarkQwen3.8 2.4T A95BQwen3 Next 80B A3B ThinkingLeader
Neither model has a result on 9 boards here
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index18 boards, none shared
General benchmarks for Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B and Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Thinking
BenchmarkQwen3.8 2.4T A95BQwen3 Next 80B A3B ThinkingLeader
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)80.3%Not measuredOnly Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B measured
LMArena TextNot measured1368Only Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Thinking measured
LMArena Text: instruction followingNot measured1344Only Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Thinking measured
LMArena Text: creative writingNot measured1314Only Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Thinking measured
LMArena Text: EnglishNot measured1392Only Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Thinking measured
LMArena Text: non-EnglishNot measured1342Only Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Thinking measured
LMArena Text: ChineseNot measured1407Only Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Thinking measured
LMArena Text: GermanNot measured1356Only Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Thinking measured
LMArena Text: JapaneseNot measured1280Only Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Thinking measured
LMArena Text: KoreanNot measured1310Only Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Thinking measured
LMArena Text: FrenchNot measured1351Only Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Thinking measured
LMArena Text: SpanishNot measured1358Only Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Thinking measured
LMArena Text: RussianNot measured1337Only Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Thinking measured
LMArena Text: PolishNot measured1345Only Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Thinking measured
LMArena Text: multi-turnNot measured1346Only Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Thinking measured
LMArena Text: longer queriesNot measured1353Only Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Thinking measured
LMArena Text: writing and languageNot measured1330Only Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Thinking measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and mediaNot measured1312Only Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Thinking measured
Neither model has a result on the other 30 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B and Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Thinking
BenchmarkQwen3.8 2.4T A95BQwen3 Next 80B A3B ThinkingLeader
Neither model has a result on 5 boards here

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.

Chat turn

1K input + 500 output tokens

Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B$0.0050Fits in one request
Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Thinking$0.0008Fits in one request

Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Thinking costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B$0.118Fits in one request
Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Thinking$0.011Fits in one request

Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Thinking costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B$0.460Fits in one request
Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Thinking$0.042Fits in one request

Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Thinking costs less

Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.

Specification differences

The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.

Specifications of Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B and Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Thinking
SpecificationQwen3.8 2.4T A95BQwen3 Next 80B A3B Thinking
MakerQwenQwen
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedAugust 12, 2026September 11, 2025
Context window1.05M262K
Input $/Mtok$2.00$0.15
Output $/Mtok$6.00$1.20
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it00
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B better than Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Thinking for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B for a larger context window (1.05M against 262K tokens).

Which is cheaper, Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B or Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Thinking?

Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B costs $2.00 per million input tokens and $6.00 per million output tokens; Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Thinking costs $0.15 and $1.20. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B or Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Thinking?

Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B, with 1.05M tokens against 262K.

How many benchmarks is the Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Thinking comparison based on?

2 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Thinking's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next