Pareto vs Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs Qwen3.8 Max Preview
Qwen3.8 Max Preview comes out ahead, 47 to 34 and 34 on our weighted score.
Unbiased
Pareto
34/100- ECI—
- Price$2.50 / $7.50
- Context262K
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
34/100- ECI—
- Price$2.00 / $6.00
- Context262K
- Our pickAlibaba (Qwen)
Qwen3.8 Max Preview
47/100- ECI—
- Price$2.00 / $6.00
- Context1M
Qwen3.8 Max Preview is our pick
Qwen3.8 Max Preview is the better all-round choice, scoring 47/100 against Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B (34) and Pareto (34). It leads on inputs & features and context window. 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 priceQwen3.8 2.4T A95B and Qwen3.8 Max PreviewQwen3.8 2.4T A95B $3.00 · Qwen3.8 Max Preview $3.00 · Pareto $3.75 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextQwen3.8 Max PreviewQwen3.8 Max Preview 1,000,000 · Pareto 262,144 · Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B 262,144 tokens
- Widest inputsQwen3.8 Max PreviewPareto: Text, Images · Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B: Text · Qwen3.8 Max Preview: Text, Images, Video
- Self-hostingQwen3.8 2.4T A95BPublishes downloadable weights (qwen3.8-max)
| Measure | Weight | Pareto | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Qwen3.8 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 23 | 27 | 27 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 50 | 45 | 70 |
| Context window | 20% | 37 | 37 | 60 |
| Overall | 100% | 34/100 | 34/100 | 47/100 |
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 | ParetoUnbiased | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95BAlibaba (Qwen) | Qwen3.8 Max PreviewAlibaba (Qwen) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $2.50 | $2.00 (best) | $2.00 (best) |
| Output | $7.50 | $6.00 (best) | $6.00 (best) |
| Cached input | — | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $3.75 | $3.00 (best) | $3.00 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 4 providers | Median of 21 providers | Median of 6 providers |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 262,144 tokens | 262,144 tokens | 1,000,000 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 131,072 tokens | 131,072 tokens | 131,072 tokens |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | No | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | No | Yes |
| Reasoning | No | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | Yes | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Proprietary | Openqwen3.8-max | Proprietary |
| API model ID | — | — | — |
| API providers | 4 | 21 (best) | 6 |
| Released | Sep 17, 2026 | Aug 12, 2026 | Jul 19, 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.
- Pareto$40.00
- Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B$32.00
- Qwen3.8 Max Preview$32.00
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Pareto, Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B or Qwen3.8 Max Preview?
Qwen3.8 Max Preview is the better all-round choice, scoring 47/100 against Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B (34) and Pareto (34). It leads on inputs & features and context window. 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, Pareto, Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B or Qwen3.8 Max Preview?
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is cheaper at $2.00 input / $6.00 output per million tokens (median across 21 API providers). Qwen3.8 Max Preview costs $2.00 input / $6.00 output per million tokens (median across 6 API providers); Pareto costs $2.50 input / $7.50 output per million tokens (median across 4 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 $3.00 for Qwen3.8 Max Preview (1× as much) and $3.75 for Pareto (1.3× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Pareto has not been scored yet, Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B has not been scored yet and Qwen3.8 Max Preview has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Pareto, Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B and Qwen3.8 Max Preview 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?
Qwen3.8 Max Preview has the largest context window at 1,000,000 tokens, against 262,144 for Pareto and 262,144 for Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B. Maximum output per response: Pareto up to 131,072, Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B up to 131,072, Qwen3.8 Max Preview up to 131,072 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Pareto accepts text and images; Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B accepts text; Qwen3.8 Max Preview accepts text, images and video. Qwen3.8 Max Preview 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; Pareto and Qwen3.8 Max Preview is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Pareto is the newest, released Sep 17, 2026. Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B came out Aug 12, 2026; Qwen3.8 Max Preview came out Jul 19, 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 Oct 4, 2026.
