Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs Ember-1 vs Fugu Max
Fugu Max comes out ahead, 46 to 36 and 31 on our weighted score.
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
31/100- ECI—
- Price$2.00 / $6.00
- Context262K
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
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 priceQwen3.8 2.4T A95B and Fugu MaxQwen3.8 2.4T A95B $3.00 · Fugu Max $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 MaxQwen3.8 2.4T A95B: Text · Ember-1: Text, Images · Fugu Max: Text, Images, PDFs
- Self-hostingQwen3.8 2.4T A95BPublishes downloadable weights (qwen3.8-max)
| Measure | Weight | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Ember-1 | Fugu Max |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 26 | 12 | 26 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 35 | 60 | 70 |
| Context window | 20% | 37 | 61 | 60 |
| Overall | 100% | 31/100 | 36/100 | 46/100 |
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 | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95BAlibaba (Qwen) | Ember-1Fireworks AI | Fugu MaxSakana AI |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $2.00 (best) | $3.00 | $2.00 (best) |
| Output | $6.00 (best) | $15.00 | $6.00 (best) |
| Cached input | — | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $3.00 (best) | $6.00 | $3.00 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 23 providers | Median of 7 providers | Median of 9 providers |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 262,144 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens (best) | 1,000,000 tokens |
| Max output | 131,072 tokens (best) | 131,072 tokens (best) | 128,000 tokens |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No | Yes |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Openqwen3.8-max | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| API model ID | — | — | — |
| API providers | 23 (best) | 7 | 9 |
| Released | Aug 12, 2026 | Sep 22, 2026 | Sep 11, 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.
- Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B$32.00
- Ember-1$60.00
- Fugu Max$32.00
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B, Ember-1 or Fugu Max?
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, Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B, Ember-1 or Fugu Max?
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is cheaper at $2.00 input / $6.00 output per million tokens (median across 23 API providers). Fugu Max costs $2.00 input / $6.00 output per million tokens (median across 9 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 Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B versus $3.00 for Fugu Max (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. Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B has not been scored yet, Ember-1 has not been scored yet and Fugu Max has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B, Ember-1 and Fugu Max 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: Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B up to 131,072, Ember-1 up to 131,072, Fugu Max up to 128,000 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B accepts text; Ember-1 accepts text and images; Fugu Max accepts text, images and PDFs. 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.
