Model Comparison
Saba
vs. Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Comparing 2 AI models · 7 benchmarks · Mistral, Alibaba
Recommended Pick
AlQwen3.8 2.4T A95B6 metric winsStrongest on: Throughput, Reasoning, Intelligence
Lowest Price
Saba
$0.00/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
64.5 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
71.9 coding index
Composite Indices
Higher is better; speed and price are normalized
Standard Benchmarks
Only benchmarks with data are shown
Differences That Matter
Price gap
Saba is ∞x cheaper on input tokens than Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B.
Reasoning gap
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B leads Saba by 37.8 points on reasoning.
Top-pick rationale
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B wins 6 measurable categories, including Throughput, Reasoning, Intelligence, GPQA.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
Saba
Mistral
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Alibaba
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Chat with leading AI models
Use Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini alongside with EU-Hosted Models like Deepseek, Qwen & Kimi.
EU-hosted inference
Servers in Germany & Finland. Designed to meet strict GDPR and ISO 27001 compliance requirements.
Full Comparison
| Metric | Mi Saba | Top Pick Al Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.00/1M | $2.00/1M |
| Output Cost | $0.00/1M | $6.00/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | — | $3.00/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Mistral | Alibaba |
| Release Date | Feb 17, 2025 | Aug 12, 2026 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | — | 47.2 tok/s |
| TTFT | — | 1771ms |
| Latency | — | 44105ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | — | 100.0 |
| Reasoning Score | 26.7 | 64.5 |
| Intelligence | 6.2 | 57.7 |
| Coding | — | 71.9 |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 42.4% | 93.5% |
| MMLU Pro | 61.1% | — |
| HLE | 4.3% | 42.4% |
| MATH 500 | 67.7% | — |
| AIME (Original) | 13.0% | — |
| SciCode | 24.1% | 51.6% |
| LCR | — | 75.3% |
Key Takeaways
Saba offers the best value at $0.00/1M,making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B has the strongest reasoning profile with a 64.5 reasoning score,combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B reaches a 71.9 coding index,making it the top choice for software development and code generation tasks.
All models support context windows of ∞+ tokens,suitable for processing lengthy documents and maintaining extended conversations.
When to Choose Each Model
Saba
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
- Code generation
- Software development
