Compare/Qwen3.8 Max vs Celeris-1

Qwen3.8 MaxvsCeleris-1

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

Alibaba

Qwen3.8 Max

Input
$2/M
Output
$6/M
Speed
51 tok/s
TTFT
1.54s
Celeris

Celeris-1

Input
$2/M
Output
$6/M
Speed
2146 tok/s
TTFT
0.47s

Winner by Category

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

Pricing Comparison

MetricQwen3.8 MaxCeleris-1
Input ($/M tokens)$2$2
Output ($/M tokens)$6$6
Cost for 1M input + 100K output tokens:
Qwen3.8 Max$2.60
Celeris-1$2.60

Speed Comparison

Output Speed (tokens/s) — higher is better
Qwen3.8 Max
51 tok/s
Celeris-1
2146 tok/s
Time to First Token (seconds) — lower is better
Qwen3.8 Max
1.54s
Celeris-1
0.47s

Editorial Analysis

Verdict. Qwen3.8 Max wins the overall benchmark matchup 5–0 across 5 overlapping categories, but raw benchmark score is only one input to the decision.

Pricing. Both models sit in the mid-tier bracket for output-token pricing. At 1.0× the per-million-token cost, Celeris-1 is meaningfully cheaper if your traffic is output-heavy (long completions, document generation, agent loops). Celeris-1 makes more sense when output volume is low and absolute reasoning quality justifies the premium.

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

Speed. On throughput, Celeris-1 generates tokens at 2146 tok/s versus 51 tok/s — about 98% faster. On time-to-first-token, Celeris-1 responds in 469ms vs 1539ms, which matters most for chat-style UIs.

Provider. Alibaba and Celeris sell to overlapping but distinct developer audiences: Alibaba tends to ship frontier reasoning models with premium positioning, while Celeris 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): Qwen3.8 Max costs $150.00 ($1800/year); Celeris-1 costs $150.00 ($1800/year). At a smaller 5M-input/2M-output scale (single-developer tool or prototype): Qwen3.8 Max ≈ $22.00/run, Celeris-1 ≈ $22.00/run. At agent/realtime scale (200M input / 100M output per million requests): Qwen3.8 Max ≈ $1000/run, Celeris-1 ≈ $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 42.13× faster (2146 tok/s vs 51 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
53.411.8
Coding Index
68.914.4
Math Index
GPQA Diamond
92.2%63.1%
MMLU-Pro
LiveCodeBench
AIME 2025
MATH-500
Humanity's Last Exam
40.3%6.6%
SciCode
45.0%20.7%
IFBench
TerminalBench
Qwen3.8 Max5 wins
0 winsCeleris-1

Frequently Asked Questions

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

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 2146 tok/s vs 51 tok/s. However, Celeris-1 has lower time-to-first-token (0.47s vs 1.54s).

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

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.