Fugu vs Fugu Max vs Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Too close to call on our weighted score (Fugu 66, Fugu Max 66, Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B 36). The right pick depends on what you value most.
Sakana AIFugu
66/100- ECI—
- Price—
- Context1M
- Sakana AI
Fugu Max
66/100- ECI—
- Price$2.00 / $6.00
- Context1M
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
36/100- ECI—
- Price$2.00 / $6.00
- Context262K
Too close to call
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within a point (Fugu 66/100, Fugu Max 66/100, Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B 36/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Fugu Max on price. The score weighs inputs & features 60%, context window 40%. 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 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend) · Fugu unpriced
- Longest contextFugu and Fugu MaxFugu 1,000,000 · Fugu Max 1,000,000 · Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B 262,144 tokens
- Widest inputsFugu MaxFugu: 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 | Fugu | Fugu Max | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inputs & features | 60% | 70 | 70 | 35 |
| Context window | 40% | 60 | 60 | 37 |
| Overall | 100% | 66/100 | 66/100 | 36/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability and price. The remaining weights were rescaled.
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | FuguSakana AI | Fugu MaxSakana AI | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95BAlibaba (Qwen) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | — | $2.00 | $2.00 |
| Output | — | $6.00 | $6.00 |
| Cached input | — | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | — | $3.00 | $3.00 |
| Long-context rate | — | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | — | Median of 9 providers | Median of 23 providers |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 1,000,000 tokens (best) | 1,000,000 tokens (best) | 262,144 tokens |
| Max output | — | 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 | Yeshigh · xhigh | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | No | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary | Openqwen3.8-max |
| API model ID | fugu | — | — |
| API providers | 1 | 9 | 23 (best) |
| Released | Jun 15, 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.
- Fugu—
- Fugu Max$32.00
- Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B$32.00
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Fugu, Fugu Max or Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B?
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within a point (Fugu 66/100, Fugu Max 66/100, Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B 36/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Fugu Max on price. The score weighs inputs & features 60%, context window 40%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
Which is cheaper, Fugu, 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). 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). Fugu has no published per-token price.
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Fugu 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 Fugu, 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?
Fugu and Fugu Max have the largest context windows (1,000,000 and 1,000,000 tokens), against 262,144 for Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B. Maximum output per response: Fugu Max up to 128,000, Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B up to 131,072 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Fugu 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; Fugu and Fugu Max is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Fugu Max is the newest, released Sep 11, 2026. Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B came out Aug 12, 2026; Fugu came out Jun 15, 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.
