Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B benchmarks & scores

Q: How much does Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B cost for agentic engineering?

The current benchmark uses a 3:1 input-to-output blend of $3.75 per million blended tokens. That places it #106 of 125 by price, where a lower rank number means less expensive.

Alibaba Open weights Released Aug 2026 Official website

63.9

Vibe Coding Index · #7 of 107

Independent Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B AI coding benchmark results Intelligence 58, Coding 72, Agentic 57, with a Vibe Coding Index of 63.9. Compare its overall rank, token price, context window, and practical agentic workflow strengths below.

Blended price #106/125

$3.75

$/M tokens · 3 to 1 in, out

Context

Window size

Evidence confidence

Medium confidence

100% core coverage

Complete core scores supported by one current verified source.

3/3

Core scores

Evidence sources

Aug 18

Last measured

Artificial analysis →

Catalog capabilities

What the model supports

1M context

Frequency penalty Include reasoning Logit bias Logprobs Max tokens Min p Presence penalty Reasoning Reasoning effort Repetition penalty

Input

Text

Output

Text

Knowledge cutoff

Not listed

Cache read price

$0.25 per million tokens

Suite radar

Suite scores

Intelligence #7/107

General reasoning & knowledge (Intelligence Index)

57.7

Coding #18/139

Code generation & software tasks (Coding Index)

71.9

Agentic #4/108

Multi-step tool use & agentic workflows (Agentic Index)

57.1

Source record

Source. Artificial Analysis (artificialanalysis.ai) via OpenRouter (openrouter.ai/rankings).

Artificial Analysis via OpenRouter OpenRouter model card

TheVibeFather rankings

Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B practical agentic coding scorecard

This is our algorithmic assessment of where Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B ranks for common vibe coding and agentic engineering workflows. Every stable 0–10 score is calculated consistently from the sourced Intelligence, Coding, and Agentic signals above—never from an unsourced opinion score.

Overall VibeFather rating

6.4 /10

#7 of 107 models

Practical area

Our score

Field rank

Small, well-defined code changes

Precision on scoped edits, fixes, and implementation tasks.

Strong 6.8/10

Field rank #14 / 107

UI and CSS iteration

Front-end implementation with iterative tool-driven refinement.

Strong 6.9/10

Field rank #12 / 108

Routine debugging

Diagnosing failures and turning reasoning into correct code changes.

Strong 6.4/10

Field rank #13 / 107

Repository-wide refactors

Coordinating larger edits across files while preserving intent.

Strong 6.4/10

Field rank #7 / 107

Architecture decisions

Reasoning through tradeoffs, constraints, and system-level choices.

Capable 5.7/10

Field rank #6 / 107

Tool use and workflow execution

Planning and completing multi-step work with tools and feedback loops.

Strong 6.1/10

Field rank #6 / 108

Long autonomous coding tasks

Sustaining coherent progress across longer agentic engineering runs.

Capable 5.7/10

Field rank #5 / 107

Overall VibeFather rating

Our complete Vibe Coding Index, expressed on the same 0–10 practical scale.

Strong 6.4/10

Field rank #7 / 107

1 · Sourced signals

We start with Intelligence, Coding, Agentic benchmark evidence, and preserve missing values as unverified.

2 · Practical lenses

Our code-controlled algorithm blends the native 0–100 signals by workflow and expresses the result on a stable 0–10 scale. Every required input must be present.

3 · Field ranking

Each workflow score is ranked against every model with comparable evidence, so positions update when the benchmark field changes.

The Vibe Coding Index is TheVibeFather’s code-controlled 0–100 composite for practical coding and agentic capability. Price and adoption are reported independently and never alter quality. Exact weighting remains proprietary, inputs, missing-data behavior, and per-category ranks are disclosed here. Read the benchmark methodology →

Recorded score history

How Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B has moved

All benchmark history →

Aug 17, 2026 9 PM CT

63.9 rank 7

No material score or rank change.

Aug 17, 2026 8 PM CT

63.9 rank 7

Baseline snapshot recorded.

Where Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B sits

Its bar stays full-color on each index while the rest of the field recedes. The price scatter below keeps the same highlight.

Intelligence

Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index · Higher is better

63.1

Claude Opus 5 62.1

Claude Fable 5 60.9

Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B 57.3

Claude Opus 4.8 57

Muse Spark 1.2 56.8

Muse Spark 1.2 56.6

GPT-5.6 Terra 56.3

GPT-5.5 56

Gemini 3.7 Flash 55.8

Grok 4.5 55.3

Claude Sonnet 5 55

Claude Opus 4.7 53.2

DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 53.2

Muse Spark 1.1 53.1

GPT-5.4 52.6

GLM-5.2 52.3

GPT-5.6 Luna 52

Gemini 3.5 Flash 51.8

DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 51.6

Gemini 3.6 Flash 48.4

Claude Sonnet 4.6 47.7

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview 46.7

Qwen3.7 Max 45.4

MiniMax-M3

Reasoning models are marked with a lightbulb Full board →

Company pulse

Latest from Qwen

Qwen Company ↗

Up to ten recent public posts from the company, linked to the originals on X.

Loading recent posts…

Public posts are cached briefly for speed.

Open @Alibaba_Qwen ↗

Model benchmark FAQ

Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B for vibe coding and agentic engineering

Answers update from this model’s current sourced scores, practical rankings, and verified pricing.

What is Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B's Vibe Coding Index?

Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B has a Vibe Coding Index of 63.9/100 and is #7 of 107 in the current field. The index is TheVibeFather's stable composite for practical AI coding, combining independently sourced Intelligence, Coding, and Agentic benchmark signals. Price and adoption are compared separately and never inflate the quality score.

How does Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B rank for vibe coding?

For vibe coding, Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B's strongest practical area is UI and CSS iteration at 6.9/10, ranking #12 of 108 models in TheVibeFather rankings.

Is Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B good for agentic coding and autonomous tasks?

Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B scores 6.1/10 for tool use and workflow execution and 5.7/10 for long autonomous coding tasks. Those categories emphasize the Agentic benchmark signal used for multi-step planning, tool calls, edits, tests, and feedback loops.

What coding benchmark scores does Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B have?

The current sourced benchmark profile for Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is Intelligence 58/100, Coding 72/100, Agentic 57/100. TheVibeFather converts those 0–100 signals into consistent practical 0–10 workflow scores so models can be compared for real agentic engineering work.

How much does Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B cost for agentic engineering?

The current benchmark uses a 3 to 1 input-to-output blend of $3.75 per million blended tokens. That places it #106 of 125 by price, where a lower rank number means less expensive.

Are vibe coding, agentic coding, and agentic engineering the same?

They describe overlapping AI-assisted software workflows. Vibe coding emphasizes directing software through intent and iteration, agentic coding emphasizes a model planning and executing multi-step work with tools, agentic engineering is the broader discipline of designing, supervising, and validating those workflows. TheVibeFather benchmarks the shared capabilities behind all three terms on every model page, including Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B.

Compare Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B → Back to leaderboard