Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs Qwen3.8 27B
Qwen3.8 27B comes out ahead, 57 to 34 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
34/100- ECI—
- Price$2.00 / $6.00
- Context262K
- Our pickAlibaba (Qwen)
Qwen3.8 27B
57/100- ECI149.4
- Price$0.40 / $2.50
- Context262K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Qwen3.8 27B is our pick
Qwen3.8 27B is the better all-round choice, scoring 57/100 against Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B (34). It leads on price and 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 27BQwen3.8 27B $0.925 · Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B $3.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextAbout the sameQwen3.8 2.4T A95B 262,144 · Qwen3.8 27B 262,144 tokens
- Widest inputsQwen3.8 27BQwen3.8 2.4T A95B: Text · Qwen3.8 27B: Text, Images, Video
- Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
| Measure | Weight | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 27 | 51 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 45 | 80 |
| Context window | 20% | 37 | 37 |
| Overall | 100% | 34/100 | 57/100 |
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) | Qwen3.8 27BAlibaba (Qwen) |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | 149.4 |
| ECI rank | — | #53 of 148 |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $2.00 | $0.40 (best) |
| Output | $6.00 | $2.50 (best) |
| Cached input | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $3.00 | $0.925 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 21 providers | Median of 39 providers |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 262,144 tokens | 262,144 tokens |
| Max output | 131,072 tokens (best) | 32,768 tokens |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | Yes |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Openqwen3.8-max | Open |
| API model ID | — | — |
| API providers | 21 | 41 (best) |
| Released | Aug 12, 2026 | Aug 14, 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
- Qwen3.8 27B$9.00
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B or Qwen3.8 27B?
Qwen3.8 27B is the better all-round choice, scoring 57/100 against Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B (34). It leads on price and 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 or Qwen3.8 27B?
Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper at $0.40 input / $2.50 output per million tokens (median across 39 API providers). Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B costs $2.00 input / $6.00 output per million tokens (median across 21 API providers). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.925 per million tokens for Qwen3.8 27B versus $3.00 for Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B (3.2× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B has not been scored yet and Qwen3.8 27B has an ECI of 149.4.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B and Qwen3.8 27B 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?
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B and Qwen3.8 27B share the same 262,144-token context window. Maximum output per response: Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B up to 131,072, Qwen3.8 27B up to 32,768 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B accepts text; Qwen3.8 27B accepts text, images and video. Qwen3.8 27B handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Yes, both publish their weights (qwen3.8-max), so you can self-host them.
Which is newer?
Qwen3.8 27B is the newest, released Aug 14, 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 Oct 4, 2026.
Related comparisons
- Add Kimi K2.7 Code HighspeedThree-way comparison
- Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs Kimi K2.7 Code HighspeedMoonshot AI
- Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs ParetoUnbiased
- Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs Sakana NamazuSakana AI
- Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs Command A PlusCohere
- Qwen3.8 27B vs Inkling SmallThinking Machines · ECI 150.2
- Qwen3.8 27B vs Kimi K2.7 CodeMoonshot AI · ECI 150.0
