Ember-1 vs Fugu Max vs Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Fugu Max comes out ahead, 46 to 36 and 31 on our weighted score.
Fireworks AIEmber-1
36/100- ECI—
- Price$3.00 / $15.00
- Context1.05M
- Our pick
Sakana AIFugu Max
46/100- ECI—
- Price$2.00 / $6.00
- Context1M
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
31/100- ECI—
- Price$2.00 / $6.00
- Context262K
Fugu Max is our pick
Fugu Max is the better all-round choice, scoring 46/100 against Ember-1 (36) and Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B (31). It leads on inputs & features. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
- CapabilityNot enough dataNo independent benchmark covers every model here yet
- Lowest priceFugu Max and Qwen3.8 2.4T A95BFugu Max $3.00 · Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B $3.00 · Ember-1 $6.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextEmber-1Ember-1 1,048,576 · Fugu Max 1,000,000 · Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B 262,144 tokens
- Widest inputsFugu MaxEmber-1: Text, Images · Fugu Max: Text, Images, PDFs · Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B: Text
- Self-hostingQwen3.8 2.4T A95BPublishes downloadable weights (qwen3.8-max)
| Measure | Weight | Ember-1 | Fugu Max | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 12 | 26 | 26 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 60 | 70 | 35 |
| Context window | 20% | 61 | 60 | 37 |
| Overall | 100% | 36/100 | 46/100 | 31/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Ember-1Fireworks AI | Fugu MaxSakana AI | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95BAlibaba (Qwen) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $3.00 | $2.00 (best) | $2.00 (best) |
| Output | $15.00 | $6.00 (best) | $6.00 (best) |
| Cached input | — | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $6.00 | $3.00 (best) | $3.00 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 7 providers | Median of 9 providers | Median of 23 providers |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 1,048,576 tokens (best) | 1,000,000 tokens | 262,144 tokens |
| Max output | 131,072 tokens (best) | 128,000 tokens | 131,072 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | Yes | No |
| PDFs | No | Yes | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary | Openqwen3.8-max |
| API model ID | — | — | — |
| API providers | 7 | 9 | 23 (best) |
| Released | Sep 22, 2026 | Sep 11, 2026 | Aug 12, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | — | — |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Ember-1$60.00
- Fugu Max$32.00
- Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B$32.00
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Ember-1, Fugu Max or Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B?
Fugu Max is the better all-round choice, scoring 46/100 against Ember-1 (36) and Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B (31). It leads on inputs & features. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
Which is cheaper, Ember-1, Fugu Max or Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B?
Fugu Max is cheaper at $2.00 input / $6.00 output per million tokens (median across 9 API providers). Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B costs $2.00 input / $6.00 output per million tokens (median across 23 API providers); Ember-1 costs $3.00 input / $15.00 output per million tokens (median across 7 API providers). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $3.00 per million tokens for Fugu Max versus $3.00 for Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B (1× as much) and $6.00 for Ember-1 (2× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Ember-1 has not been scored yet, Fugu Max has not been scored yet and Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Ember-1, Fugu Max and Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. All three support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Ember-1 has the largest context window at 1,048,576 tokens, against 1,000,000 for Fugu Max and 262,144 for Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B. Maximum output per response: Ember-1 up to 131,072, Fugu Max up to 128,000, Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B up to 131,072 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Ember-1 accepts text and images; Fugu Max accepts text, images and PDFs; Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B accepts text. Fugu Max handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B publishes its weights (qwen3.8-max) and can be self-hosted; Ember-1 and Fugu Max is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Ember-1 is the newest, released Sep 22, 2026. Fugu Max came out Sep 11, 2026; Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B came out Aug 12, 2026.
How do you decide the winner?
Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Nov 2, 2026.
