Fugu vs Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Fugu comes out ahead, 66 to 36 on our weighted score.
- Our pick
Sakana AIFugu
66/100- ECI—
- Price—
- Context1M
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
36/100- ECI—
- Price$2.00 / $6.00
- Context262K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Fugu is our pick
Fugu is the better all-round choice, scoring 66/100 against Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B (36). It leads on inputs & features and context window. 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 priceQwen3.8 2.4T A95BQwen3.8 2.4T A95B $3.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend) · Fugu unpriced
- Longest contextFuguFugu 1,000,000 · Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B 262,144 tokens
- Widest inputsFuguFugu: Text, Images · Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B: Text
- Self-hostingQwen3.8 2.4T A95BPublishes downloadable weights (qwen3.8-max)
| Measure | Weight | Fugu | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Inputs & features | 60% | 70 | 35 |
| Context window | 40% | 60 | 37 |
| Overall | 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 | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95BAlibaba (Qwen) |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | — | $2.00 |
| Output | — | $6.00 |
| Cached input | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | — | $3.00 |
| Long-context rate | — | Same rate |
| Price source | — | Median of 23 providers |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 1,000,000 tokens (best) | 262,144 tokens |
| Max output | — | 131,072 tokens |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | No |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yeshigh · xhigh | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Proprietary | Openqwen3.8-max |
| API model ID | fugu | — |
| API providers | 1 | 23 (best) |
| Released | Jun 15, 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—
- Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B$32.00
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Fugu or Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B?
Fugu is the better all-round choice, scoring 66/100 against Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B (36). It leads on inputs & features and context window. 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 or Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B?
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is cheaper at $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 Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B versus . Fugu has no published per-token price.
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Fugu 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 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. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Fugu has the largest context window at 1,000,000 tokens, against 262,144 for Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B. Maximum output per response: Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B up to 131,072 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Fugu accepts text and images; Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B accepts text. Fugu 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 is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is the newest, released 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.
