Fugu Ultra v2.0 vs Qwen3 235B A22B (2507)

Sakana AI · Global  |  Alibaba · China · Updated June 2026

Quick verdict

Pick Fugu Ultra v2.0 for sakana's own evaluation reports best-or-joint-best results on 5 of 8 benchmarks tested, including a 74.3 on the deepswe coding-repair benchmark or claims to outperform flagship models like gpt-6 astra and claude fable 5.1 despite its underlying orchestration pool reportedly excluding both of them. Pick Qwen3 235B A22B (2507) for deep world knowledge from 235b total parameters (83.0 mmlu-pro, 93.1 mmlu-redux) or exceptional multilingual and alignment results (79.2 arena-hard v2, 85.2 writingbench). Choose Qwen3 235B A22B (2507) if you need self-hosting or data privacy; Fugu Ultra v2.0 if you want a managed API.

Fugu Ultra v2.0 (Sakana AI) and Qwen3 235B A22B (2507) (Alibaba) are two of the models people most often weigh against each other in 2026. Fugu Ultra v2.0 is sakana AI's flagship multi-agent orchestration model, claiming best-or-joint-best results on 5 of 8 self-reported benchmarks against monolithic frontier models — $5/$30 per million tokens. Qwen3 235B A22B (2507) is an older 235B text-only open mixture-of-experts with broad knowledge and strong writing — but no vision, no thinking mode, and weak coding. They diverge most on price, context window and open vs. closed weights — each quantified below from the models' real specs.

Key differences at a glance

Side-by-side specs

SpecFugu Ultra v2.0Qwen3 235B A22B (2507)
ProviderSakana AI (Global) Alibaba (China)
ReleasedSeptember 10, 2026 July 21, 2025
Context window1M tokens (~1,500 pages) 256K (~393 pages)
Price (in/out)$5/$30 per 1M tokens Open weight (self-host / free)
Open weight?No — API only Yes — self-hostable
Modalitiestext text, code
SWE-Bench VerifiedNot published Not published
MRCR v2 @ 1MNot published Not published

Who wins what

Sakana's own evaluation reports best-or-joint-best results on 5 of 8 benchmarks tested, including a 74.3 on the DeepSWE coding-repair benchmark

Fugu Ultra v2.0

Qwen3 235B A22B (2507) is comparatively weak here — coding is weak by 2026 standards, and it publishes no SWE-Bench score to compare on

Claims to outperform flagship models like GPT-6 Astra and Claude Fable 5.1 despite its underlying orchestration pool reportedly excluding both of them

Fugu Ultra v2.0

Sakana AI's flagship multi-agent orchestration model, claiming best-or-joint-best results on 5 of 8 self-reported benchmarks against monolithic frontier models — $5/$30 per million tokens — and it carries the larger 1M tokens context.

1M-token context window

Fugu Ultra v2.0

Its 1M tokens window holds about 3.8× more than Qwen3 235B A22B (2507)'s 256K in a single prompt.

Deep world knowledge from 235B total parameters (83.0 MMLU-Pro, 93.1 MMLU-Redux)

Qwen3 235B A22B (2507)

An older 235B text-only open mixture-of-experts with broad knowledge and strong writing — but no vision, no thinking mode, and weak coding — and its weights are open while Fugu Ultra v2.0 is API-only.

Exceptional multilingual and alignment results (79.2 Arena-Hard v2, 85.2 WritingBench)

Qwen3 235B A22B (2507)

Qwen3 235B A22B (2507) lists exceptional multilingual and alignment results (79.2 Arena-Hard v2, 85.2 WritingBench) among its strengths; Fugu Ultra v2.0 does not.

Outstanding structured logic — 95.0 on ZebraLogic

Qwen3 235B A22B (2507)

Qwen3 235B A22B (2507) lists outstanding structured logic — 95.0 on ZebraLogic among its strengths; Fugu Ultra v2.0 does not.

Lowest cost at scale

Qwen3 235B A22B (2507)

Its weights are open, so at volume you pay for your own hardware instead of Fugu Ultra v2.0's $5/$30 per 1M tokens.

Largest single-prompt input

Fugu Ultra v2.0

Its 1M tokens window is about 3.8× larger than Qwen3 235B A22B (2507)'s 256K, fitting roughly 1,500 pages in one prompt.

Which should you pick?

A cost-sensitive startup shipping high volume

Qwen3 235B A22B (2507)

At Open weight (self-host / free) it undercuts Fugu Ultra v2.0, and on millions of tokens that margin decides the monthly bill.

Someone analysing very long documents or codebases

Fugu Ultra v2.0

Larger 1M tokens window fits more in one prompt.

A team with data-privacy or self-hosting needs

Qwen3 235B A22B (2507)

Open weights let you run it on your own hardware; Fugu Ultra v2.0 is API-only.

Anyone whose priority is sakana's own evaluation reports best-or-joint-best results on 5 of 8 benchmarks tested, including a 74.3 on the deepswe coding-repair benchmark

Fugu Ultra v2.0

It is specifically built for that.

Anyone whose priority is deep world knowledge from 235b total parameters (83.0 mmlu-pro, 93.1 mmlu-redux)

Qwen3 235B A22B (2507)

That is its strongest area.

Fugu Ultra v2.0: where it fits

Sakana AI's flagship multi-agent orchestration model, claiming best-or-joint-best results on 5 of 8 self-reported benchmarks against monolithic frontier models — $5/$30 per million tokens. Released September 10, 2026 by Sakana AI, it is built for sakana's own evaluation reports best-or-joint-best results on 5 of 8 benchmarks tested, including a 74.3 on the DeepSWE coding-repair benchmark, claims to outperform flagship models like GPT-6 Astra and Claude Fable 5.1 despite its underlying orchestration pool reportedly excluding both of them, and 1M-token context window.

Its trade-offs are real: not a single trained model — Sakana describes Fugu as "a Multi-Agent System, Delivered as One Model" that dynamically routes tasks across a pool of other models, so head-to-head benchmark framing against monolithic frontier models should be read skeptically, pricing rises to roughly $10/$45 per million tokens for prompts above 272K tokens, and benchmark comparisons against GPT-6 Astra and Claude Fable 5.1 are Sakana's own self-reported figures, not independently verified head-to-head scores. At $5 in / $30 out per million tokens, it sits in the premium price band.

Qwen3 235B A22B (2507): where it fits

An older 235B text-only open mixture-of-experts with broad knowledge and strong writing — but no vision, no thinking mode, and weak coding. Released July 21, 2025 by Alibaba, it is built for deep world knowledge from 235B total parameters (83.0 MMLU-Pro, 93.1 MMLU-Redux), exceptional multilingual and alignment results (79.2 Arena-Hard v2, 85.2 WritingBench), outstanding structured logic — 95.0 on ZebraLogic, and no thinking mode, which makes latency and token spend entirely predictable.

Its trade-offs: nearly a year old and superseded — Artificial Analysis now steers users to Qwen3.5-397B instead, text-only with no vision, and the absence of a thinking mode caps its hardest reasoning, coding is weak by 2026 standards, and it publishes no SWE-Bench score to compare on, and its 235B weights need roughly 438GB in BF16, far beyond consumer hardware. As an open-weight model, its running cost is your own hardware rather than a per-token fee.

The bottom line for this matchup

The defining split here is open vs. closed. Qwen3 235B A22B (2507) gives you weights you control — self-host it, fine-tune it, keep data in-house, pay only for hardware. Fugu Ultra v2.0 gives you a managed, always-updated API with no infrastructure to run. Teams with GPUs, privacy requirements, or huge volume often favour the open model; teams that want zero ops and the latest capabilities favour the closed one. Capability is close enough that this operational question, not the benchmark, usually decides it.

Want both Fugu Ultra v2.0 and Qwen3 235B A22B (2507) without two subscriptions? LumiChats gives you these plus 40+ models under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day) — draft with one, cross-check with the other.

See pricing

Frequently asked questions

Is Fugu Ultra v2.0 or Qwen3 235B A22B (2507) better for coding?

Public SWE-Bench figures are not available for either model, so the honest test is your own repository — run an identical real bug through both. By design, Fugu Ultra v2.0 leans toward sakana's own evaluation reports best-or-joint-best results on 5 of 8 benchmarks tested, including a 74.3 on the deepswe coding-repair benchmark while Qwen3 235B A22B (2507) leans toward deep world knowledge from 235b total parameters (83.0 mmlu-pro, 93.1 mmlu-redux), and that positioning usually predicts which feels better on your codebase.

Which is cheaper, Fugu Ultra v2.0 or Qwen3 235B A22B (2507)?

Qwen3 235B A22B (2507) is open-weight, so self-hosting means no per-token fee (you pay for hardware instead), while Fugu Ultra v2.0 is API-metered at $5/$30 per 1M tokens. For most teams without GPUs, the API model is cheaper to start; at very high volume, self-hosting can win.

Which has the bigger context window?

Fugu Ultra v2.0 — 1M tokens vs 256K, about 3.8× larger. Useful only if the model actually reasons over the full window, which not all do.

Can I use both Fugu Ultra v2.0 and Qwen3 235B A22B (2507) together?

Yes — a multi-model platform like LumiChats gives you Fugu Ultra v2.0, Qwen3 235B A22B (2507) and 40+ others under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day), so you can draft with one and cross-check with the other instead of buying two subscriptions.

Which is newer, Fugu Ultra v2.0 or Qwen3 235B A22B (2507)?

Fugu Ultra v2.0 — released September 10, 2026, about 14 months after Qwen3 235B A22B (2507).

Related comparisons

Specifications and benchmarks reflect publicly reported figures as of June 2026 and may change as providers release updates. Always verify on your own workload.