Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs Solar Mini 4
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B leads Solar Mini 4 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 39.9 to 24.1, and Solar Mini 4 costs 30.0x less per output token ($0.20 vs $6.00 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 4 benchmarks have a result for both.
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B or Solar Mini 4: 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 524K tokens) and work measured by Long context reasoning (AA-LCR), where it leads.
- Shared results
- 4
- Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B only
- 5
- Solar Mini 4 only
- 4
- Like-for-like categories
- 4 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.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
No call
Neither has a coding score yet.
One side not measured
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B leads, 39.9 against 24.1.
Same board, both measured
Agentic work
AA Agentic Index
No call
Only Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B has a AA Agentic Index result, 50.1.
Directional only
Web design
Design Arena: websites
No call
Only Solar Mini 4 has a Design Arena: websites result, 1159.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B takes 1.05M tokens against 524K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Solar Mini 4
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B $0.0050, Solar Mini 4 $0.0001 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B not benchmarked, Solar Mini 4 not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- Reasoning, 16.6 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
- Widest single gap
- Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run): Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B 42.4% against Solar Mini 4 25.8%, 16.6 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B $6.00 against Solar Mini 4 $0.20 per million output tokens, 30.0x apart.
- Context window
- Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B takes 1.05M tokens, Solar Mini 4 524K.
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.
| Category | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Bars | Solar Mini 4 | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 1 | 0 | ||
| Intelligence | 1 | 0 | ||
| Reasoning | 1 | 0 | ||
| General | 0 | 1 | ||
| All shared boards | 3 | 1 |
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index10
| Benchmark | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Solar Mini 4 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Coding Index | 71.9 | Not measured | Only Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B measured |
| SciCode | 54.1% | 47.6% | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B |
| Neither model has a result on the other 41 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Solar Mini 4 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 39.9 | 24.1 | Qwen3.8 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
| Benchmark | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Solar Mini 4 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic Index | 50.1 | Not measured | Only Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B measured |
| MCP Atlas | 84.5% | Not measured | Only Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 40 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Solar Mini 4 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 93.5% | Not measured | Only Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B measured |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 42.4% | 25.8% | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B |
| Neither model has a result on the other 21 boards here | |||
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
| Benchmark | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Solar Mini 4 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MathArena | 31.6% | Not measured | Only Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 13 boards here | |||
KnowledgeNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Solar Mini 4 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 20 boards here | |||
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index4 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Solar Mini 4 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena: websites | Not measured | 1159 | Only Solar Mini 4 measured |
| Design Arena: UI components | Not measured | 1073 | Only Solar Mini 4 measured |
| Design Arena: game dev | Not measured | 1105 | Only Solar Mini 4 measured |
| Design Arena: all code categories | Not measured | 1149 | Only Solar Mini 4 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 5 boards here | |||
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Solar Mini 4 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 80.3% | 83.3% | Solar Mini 4 |
| Neither model has a result on the other 47 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Solar Mini 4 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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
Solar Mini 4 costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Solar Mini 4 costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Solar Mini 4 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.
| Specification | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Upstage Solar Mini 4 |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Qwen | Upstage |
| Weights | Open weights | No public weights listed |
| Released | August 12, 2026 | September 23, 2026 |
| Context window | 1.05M | 524K |
| Input $/Mtok | $2.00 | $0.05 |
| Output $/Mtok | $6.00 | $0.20 |
| Coding index | Not benchmarked | Not benchmarked |
| Independent measurements behind it | 0 | 0 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B better than Solar Mini 4 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 524K tokens) and work measured by Long context reasoning (AA-LCR), where it leads.
Which is cheaper, Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B or Solar Mini 4?
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B costs $2.00 per million input tokens and $6.00 per million output tokens; Solar Mini 4 costs $0.05 and $0.20. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B or Solar Mini 4?
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B, with 1.05M tokens against 524K.
How many benchmarks is the Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs Solar Mini 4 comparison based on?
4 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 Solar Mini 4's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.