Qwen3.5 397B A17B vs Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B

This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Qwen3.5 397B A17B and Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.

Qwen3.5 397B A17B is $0.45 and Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is $2.00 per million tokens, so Qwen3.5 397B A17B is cheaper on this metric. Qwen3.5 397B A17B is $3.00 and Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is $6.00 per million tokens, so Qwen3.5 397B A17B is cheaper on this metric.

Both models have the same sourced context window: 262,144 tokens each.

There is no overall benchmark winner: At least two independently verified, protocol-matched benchmarks are required for an overall winner.

Both models have the same sourced self-hosting status: supported. Qwen3.5 397B A17B is open weight; Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is open weight.

Qwen3.5 397B A17B is documented with image input; Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is not documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.

Neither model has a sourced maximum output in this comparison, so a larger limit cannot be determined.

Qwen3.5 397B A17B: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B: reasoning and tool calling. Feature support does not establish relative quality.

Qwen3.5 397B A17B has 4 sourced provider routes; Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B has 5, so Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B has broader tracked availability.

There is no universal value winner. Compare the input and output prices above with the matched benchmark result for your workload: cheaper tokens can be offset by different quality, token usage, latency, or provider availability.