Skip to content
Rival
How it worksPrivacyTerms
Explore all of Rival

Explore

  • Compare Models
  • All Models
  • Image Comparison
  • Audio Comparison
  • Image Generation
  • Best AI For...
  • Arena
  • API Pricing
  • Challenges

Discover

  • SubjectiveBench
  • Default Index
  • Research
  • Research downloads
  • Rival Kits
  • Find your AI taste
  • UI Glow-Up
  • VoiceLock
  • Cost Cutter
  • Agent skills
  • Benchmarks vs Vibes
  • Brief
  • Jailbreak
  • Model Updates
  • Provider Status
  • AI Creators

Connect

  • Methodology
  • Advertise
  • Partnerships
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms
  • RSS Feed
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Compare
  4. /
  5. Qwen3.8 2.4T A95BvsSolar Pro 4
Updated Aug 2026

Qwen3.8 2.4T A95BvsSolar Pro 4

Solar Pro 4 is cheaper than Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B at $0.09/M vs $2/M input tokens.

Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B and Solar Pro 4 compared across 14 shared prompts
SpecQwen3.8 2.4T A95BSolar Pro 4
Input price$2/M tokens$0.09/M tokens
Output price$6/M tokens$0.36/M tokens
Context window1.0M tokens524K tokens
WeightsOpen—
Free API (OpenRouter)NoNo
ReleasedAug 2026Aug 2026
Side by side

Same prompt, both answers

Opening lines from 6 of the 14 prompts both answered. Formatting stripped, words untouched.

Advanced Investment Memo (IC Memo)

You are writing an internal investment committee memo for a long/short equity fund. Company (fictional): LedgerLift (ticker: LLLT) – B2B…

Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B1,187 words
Internal IC Memo – LedgerLift (LLLT) – Fictional Exercise Recommendation Rating: Pass 12-month PT range: $38–$48 Thesis: LedgerLift is a high-quality spend-management/AP automation SaaS with strong NRR, efficient CAC payback, and low concentration, but at $46 the shares already price in near-bull-case execution on DCF…
Read the full answer
Solar Pro 41,052 words
INTERNAL MEMO – INVESTMENT COMMITTEE TO: IC Members FROM: Long/Short Equity Desk DATE: Oct 2024 SUBJECT: LedgerLift (LLLT) – Initiation / Long Recommendation & Thesis Recommendation: LONG 12-Month PT Range: $52–$58 (Base case ~$54, Bull ~$68, Bear ~$38) Thesis: LedgerLift is a structurally advantaged mid-market AP…
Read the full answer

Simple 7-Ingredient Recipe

Create a simple recipe for a delicious dish (sweet or savory) using only 7 common pantry ingredients. Include a creative name for the dish…

Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B166 words
Lighthouse Lemon-Garlic Tuna Pasta A savory, pantry-friendly pasta that’s bright, garlicky, and satisfying. 7 Pantry Ingredients 8 oz spaghetti or linguine 3 tablespoons olive oil 3 garlic cloves, thinly sliced 2 cans tuna, drained 2 tablespoons lemon juice ½ teaspoon red pepper flakes ½ teaspoon salt Water for boiling…
Read the full answer
Solar Pro 4294 words
🍝 Golden Umami Silk Noodles A savory-sweet pasta dish that transforms basic pantry staples into a glossy, flavorful meal. It's quick, comforting, and relies on the balance of soy, honey, and butter for a rich sauce without needing fresh produce.
Read the full answer

Startup Pitch Teardown

Here's a pitch deck summary for a startup called "MindMeld AI": **Slide 1 - Vision:** "We're building the future of human-AI collaboration.…

Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B1,709 words
The three weakest claims are the ones most likely to collapse under investor diligence: “before you think it,” “94% accuracy… any language, any device,” and the $180B TAM claim. They are weak because they are either scientifically implausible, under-specified, or logically inconsistent with the market evidence cited.
Read the full answer
Solar Pro 41,009 words
Here are the three weakest claims in the MindMeld AI pitch deck, along with an analysis of why they undermine credibility and specific recommendations for improvement. The Technical Performance Claim Claim: "Our proprietary EEG headband uses advanced ML to decode neural patterns into text with 94% accuracy...
Read the full answer

Adversarial Contract Review

Here is a contract for a software consulting engagement: --- SOFTWARE CONSULTING AGREEMENT This Agreement is entered into between TechCorp…

Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B6,649 words
This agreement is heavily one-sided and, as drafted, gives the Client multiple ways to extract value from the Contractor while minimizing its own obligations. Some provisions may be unenforceable or limited by law in certain jurisdictions, but even unenforceable clauses can be exploited commercially because the…
Read the full answer
Solar Pro 41,382 words
Disclaimer: I am an AI assistant and not an attorney. The following analysis is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Contract laws vary significantly by jurisdiction (e.g., state, country).
Read the full answer

Debug This Architecture

Here's the architecture for a real-time collaborative document editor (like Google Docs): **System Overview:** - Frontend: React SPA with…

Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B3,715 words
The architecture as written has several P0 correctness problems that can cause lost edits, divergent documents, and security/staleness issues, plus scaling bottlenecks that get worse as you add more API servers. Below is a detailed failure-mode review, grouped by category.
Read the full answer
Solar Pro 41,598 words
This architecture contains several fundamental mismatches between real-time collaborative editing requirements and the chosen patterns. Below is a systematic breakdown of failure modes, race conditions, and scaling bottlenecks, each with a targeted solution and explicit trade-offs.
Read the full answer

Historical Counterfactual Analysis

If the transistor had been invented in 1920 instead of 1947, trace the likely technological, economic, and geopolitical implications through…

Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B4,865 words
Premise: what changes, and what does not Assume the transistor is invented in 1920 in a form roughly comparable to the late-1940s germanium point-contact or early junction transistor: it can amplify, detect, and switch signals, but it is initially expensive, low-yield, low-power, and limited in frequency.
Read the full answer
Solar Pro 41,638 words
The Premise: The 1920 Solid-State Breakthrough For this scenario to function, we must assume a functional point-contact or junction transistor is demonstrated in 1920 (perhaps by Lilienfeld or an early Bell Labs precursor), and crucially, that methods for purifying semiconductor materials (germanium/silicon) are solved…
Read the full answer
Our Verdict
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Solar Pro 4
Solar Pro 4Runner-up

Not enough votes to call it. On the specs, Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B has the edge: bigger model tier, bigger context window.

Solar Pro 4 costs 17x less per token.

Too close to call
API pricing

Cost per 1M tokens

Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Input
$2.00
Output
$6.00
Solar Pro 4
Input
$0.09
22× cheaper
Output
$0.36
17× cheaper

Solar Pro 4 is cheaper on both: 22× input, 17× output.

Where to run it

8 hosts

Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B7 hosts
HostInOutContextUptime
Alibaba Cloud$2.00 in·$6.00 out·1M·99.9% upDDeepInfrafp4$2.00 in·$6.00 out·262k·99.9% upModal$2.00 in·$6.00 out·1M·100% upNNovita$2.00 in·$6.00 out·1M·99.9% upSSiliconFlowfp8$2.00 in·$6.00 out·1M·100% upTTogether$2.00 in·$6.00 out·1M·100% up
1 more hostFewer hosts
VVenice$2.00 in·$6.00 out·262k·96.7% up
Solar Pro 41 host
HostInOutContextUptime
UUpstage$0.09 in·$0.36 out·524k·99.7% up

Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 23 Sep 2026.

Research

What we learned reading every model

FAQ

Common questions

Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is developed by Qwen while Solar Pro 4 is developed by Upstage. Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B has a 1.0M token context window vs Solar Pro 4's 524K. You can compare their actual outputs across 14 challenges on Rival to see how they differ in practice.

It depends on your use case. Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B and Solar Pro 4 each have strengths in different areas. Rival lets you compare their real outputs side-by-side across 14 challenges so you can judge which fits your needs best.

Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B costs $2/M input tokens and Solar Pro 4 costs $0.09/M input tokens. Solar Pro 4 is $1.91/M cheaper per input. Check their side-by-side outputs on Rival to see if the price difference is justified by quality.

This page shows a side-by-side comparison of Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B and Solar Pro 4 across shared challenges. You can vote on which model produced the better output in a blind duel. Browsing and voting are free. No account is needed to look; signing in only saves your votes and likes.

Keep exploring

More comparisons

Against the newest arrivals

Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B logoDeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp logo
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision ExpLanded Sep 2026
Solar Pro 4 logoHy3 logo
Solar Pro 4 vs Hy3Landed Sep 2026
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B logoQwen3.7 Flash logo
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs Qwen3.7 FlashLanded Sep 2026
Solar Pro 4 logoLing 3.0 Flash logo
Solar Pro 4 vs Ling 3.0 FlashLanded Sep 2026
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B logoMuse Glimmer 30B logo
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs Muse Glimmer 30BLanded Sep 2026
Solar Pro 4 logoGLM 5.3 logo
Solar Pro 4 vs GLM 5.3Landed Sep 2026
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B logoTernary Bonsai 2 27B logo
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs Ternary Bonsai 2 27BLanded Sep 2026
Solar Pro 4 logoGLM 5.3 Flash logo
Solar Pro 4 vs GLM 5.3 FlashLanded Sep 2026

Same lab, same size, long tail

Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B logoQwen3.8 27B logo
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs Qwen3.8 27BVersion compare
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B logoQwen3.8 Flash logo
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs Qwen3.8 FlashSame lab
Solar Pro 4 logoSolar Pro 3 logo
Solar Pro 4 vs Solar Pro 3Same lab
Solar Pro 4 logoOx Alpha logo
Solar Pro 4 vs Ox AlphaSame size
Solar Pro 4 logoHorizon Alpha logo
Solar Pro 4 vs Horizon AlphaSame size
Solar Pro 4 logoHorizon Beta logo
Solar Pro 4 vs Horizon BetaSame size
Solar Pro 4 logoHunter Alpha logo
Solar Pro 4 vs Hunter AlphaNew provider
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B logoHy3 logo
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs Hy3Same size

Model pages

Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B logo
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B58 outputs, specs and price
Solar Pro 4 logo
Solar Pro 414 outputs, specs and price
Rival
How it worksPrivacyTerms
Explore all of Rival

Explore

  • Compare Models
  • All Models
  • Image Comparison
  • Audio Comparison
  • Image Generation
  • Best AI For...
  • Arena
  • API Pricing
  • Challenges

Discover

  • SubjectiveBench
  • Default Index
  • Research
  • Research downloads
  • Rival Kits
  • Find your AI taste
  • UI Glow-Up
  • VoiceLock
  • Cost Cutter
  • Agent skills
  • Benchmarks vs Vibes
  • Brief
  • Jailbreak
  • Model Updates
  • Provider Status
  • AI Creators

Connect

  • Methodology
  • Advertise
  • Partnerships
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms
  • RSS Feed