Compare/Celeris-1 vs Qwen3.8 Max

Celeris-1vsQwen3.8 Max

Side-by-side comparison of pricing, 12 benchmarks, and generation speed.

Celeris

Celeris-1

Input
$2/M
Output
$6/M
Speed
2195 tok/s
TTFT
0.48s
Alibaba

Qwen3.8 Max

Input
$2/M
Output
$6/M
Speed
49 tok/s
TTFT
1.57s

Winner by Category

Cheaper
Tie
Faster (tok/s)
Celeris-1
Lower Latency
Celeris-1
Benchmarks (0-5)
Qwen3.8 Max

Pricing Comparison

MetricCeleris-1Qwen3.8 Max
Input ($/M tokens)$2$2
Output ($/M tokens)$6$6
Cost for 1M input + 100K output tokens:
Celeris-1$2.60
Qwen3.8 Max$2.60

Speed Comparison

Output Speed (tokens/s) — higher is better
Celeris-1
2195 tok/s
Qwen3.8 Max
49 tok/s
Time to First Token (seconds) — lower is better
Celeris-1
0.48s
Qwen3.8 Max
1.57s

Editorial Analysis

Verdict. Qwen3.8 Max takes the aggregate benchmark matchup 5–0 across 5 categories. Real workloads usually care about a handful of specific tasks — see the per-benchmark table above.

Pricing. Both models sit in the mid-tier bracket for output-token pricing. At 1.0× the per-million-token cost, Qwen3.8 Max is meaningfully cheaper if your traffic is output-heavy (long completions, document generation, agent loops). Qwen3.8 Max makes more sense when output volume is low and absolute reasoning quality justifies the premium.

Strengths. Celeris-1 is strongest on GPQA Diamond (63%), SciCode (21%), Coding Index (14.4). Qwen3.8 Max leads on GPQA Diamond (92%), Coding Index (68.9), Intelligence Index (53.4).

Speed. On throughput, Celeris-1 generates tokens at 2195 tok/s versus 49 tok/s — about 98% faster. On time-to-first-token, Celeris-1 responds in 482ms vs 1569ms, which matters most for chat-style UIs.

Provider. Celeris and Alibaba sell to overlapping but distinct developer audiences: Celeris tends to ship frontier reasoning models with premium positioning, while Alibaba often prices more aggressively. Your existing vendor relationships, billing, and SLA preferences may matter as much as the raw numbers above.

Workload cost. Workload scenarios (per million requests at 30M input + 15M output tokens): Celeris-1 costs $150.00 ($1800/year); Qwen3.8 Max costs $150.00 ($1800/year). At a smaller 5M-input/2M-output scale (single-developer tool or prototype): Celeris-1 ≈ $22.00/run, Qwen3.8 Max ≈ $22.00/run. At agent/realtime scale (200M input / 100M output per million requests): Celeris-1 ≈ $1000/run, Qwen3.8 Max ≈ $1000/run.

Recommendation. Both models have legitimate use cases — the right answer depends on whether you are optimizing for benchmark ceiling, latency, or unit cost. Start with the cheaper / faster model, evaluate against your specific task, and only switch if the upgrade shows a meaningful lift.

Head-to-head deltas

  • Qwen3.8 Max wins 5 more benchmarks than its opponent — a margin wide enough to call the comparison settled on benchmark terms alone.
  • On throughput, Celeris-1 is 44.51× faster (2195 tok/s vs 49 tok/s). For streaming chat or real-time agents this alone often flips the recommendation.

Benchmark Comparison

Data from Artificial Analysis API — 12 benchmarks

Intelligence Index
11.853.4
Coding Index
14.468.9
Math Index
GPQA Diamond
63.1%92.2%
MMLU-Pro
LiveCodeBench
AIME 2025
MATH-500
Humanity's Last Exam
6.6%40.3%
SciCode
20.7%45.0%
IFBench
TerminalBench
Celeris-10 wins
5 winsQwen3.8 Max

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, Celeris-1 or Qwen3.8 Max?

Both models have similar pricing. Check the detailed breakdown above for input vs output token costs.

Which model performs better on benchmarks?

Qwen3.8 Max wins 5 out of 12 benchmarks compared to 0 for Celeris-1. See the detailed benchmark chart above for per-category results.

Which is faster for real-time applications?

Celeris-1 generates tokens faster at 2195 tok/s vs 49 tok/s. Celeris-1 also has lower time-to-first-token (0.48s vs 1.57s).

When should I use Celeris-1 vs Qwen3.8 Max?

Choose based on your priorities: both are similarly priced, Qwen3.8 Max for stronger benchmark performance, and Celeris-1 for faster generation. For latency-sensitive apps, check the TTFT comparison above.