Claude Opus 4.6 vs Qwen3.8 Max
Claude Opus 4.6 
Qwen3.8 Max Verdict
- Qwen3.8 Max (max) leads on quality: 64.2 vs 63.1.
- Claude Opus 4.6 is stronger in agents & tools, maths, multimodal.
- Qwen3.8 Max (max) is stronger in coding, human preference, reasoning, composite, knowledge, long context.
- Qwen3.8 Max (max) is 3.3× cheaper ($3.00 vs $10.00 per 1M blended).
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.6 | Qwen3.8 Max (max) |
|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 63.1 | 64.2 |
| Agents & tools score | 68.9 | 58.2 |
| Coding score | 60.1 | 64.6 |
| Human preference score | 64.4 | 68.0 |
| Maths score | 68.0 | 65.1 |
| Multimodal score | 66.4 | 66.2 |
| Reasoning score | 62.0 | 72.2 |
| Composite score | – | 70.7 |
| Knowledge score | – | 62.7 |
| Long context score | – | 65.4 |
| Blended price $/M | $10.00 | $3.00 |
| Output speed | 40 tok/s | 37 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | 1.6 s | 58.9 s |
| Context window | 1M | 1M |
| GPQA Diamond | 90.5% | – |
| OTIS Mock AIME | 94.4% | – |
| SWE-bench Verified (Epoch) | 78.7% | – |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 19.0% | – |
| Terminal-Bench | 79.8% | 27.0% |
| SimpleBench | 67.6% | – |
| SciCode | – | 53.2% |
| Cybench | 93.0% | – |
| Remote Labor Index | 4.2% | – |
| WeirdML | 77.9% | – |
| APEX-Agents | – | 63.3% |
| FrontierCode | 26.6% | – |
| ProofBench | – | 58.0% |
| GSO-Bench | 33.3% | – |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 155.2 | 156.4 |
| LMArena Text | 1498 | 1483 |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1527 | 1504 |
| LMArena Coding | 1548 | 1524 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1537 | 1672 |
| LMArena Vision | 1313 | 1314 |
| LMArena Agent | – | 2.3 |
| LiveBench | – | 78.5% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | – | 88.2% |
| LiveBench Coding | – | 72.9% |
| LiveBench Agentic Coding | – | 64.7% |
| LiveBench Mathematics | – | 91.3% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | – | 78.4% |
| LiveBench Language | – | 79.7% |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | – | 74.1% |
| AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2 | – | 45.4 |
| AA-LCR | – | 80.3% |
| MMMU-Pro | – | 82.8% |
| AA-Omniscience | – | 12.0 |
| GPQA Diamond (AA) | – | 92.8% |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | – | 43.1% |
| SciCode (AA) | – | 53.2% |
| LiveCodeBench | – | 87.8% |
| MMLU-Pro | – | 88.6% |
| IOI | – | 68.9% |
| LegalBench | – | 83.6% |
| CorpFin | – | 65.8% |
| TaxEval | – | 75.5% |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals) | – | 67.4% |
| SWE-bench (Vals) | – | 85.6% |
| GPQA Diamond (Vals) | – | 93.7% |
| Vals Index | – | 48.3 |
| HiL-Bench | 38.3% | – |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1223 | – |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 72.4% | – |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 75.6% | – |
| SWE-bench Verified (any scaffold) | 75.6% | – |
| CritPt | – | 20.0% |
| GDPval-AA v2.1 | – | 58.6% |
| τ³-Banking (AA) | – | 51.3% |
| ITBench SRE (AA) | – | 40.3% |
| Analyst Agent (AA) | – | 45.0% |
| APEX-Agents (AA) | – | 42.4% |
| Code Migration | – | 24.0% |
| CyberBench | – | 28.6% |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark | – | 60.1% |
| Finance Agent v2 | – | 50.6% |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark | – | 10.4% |
| Legal Research Bench | – | 47.6% |
| MedCode | 48.2% | 40.7% |
| MedScribe | 86.7% | 85.0% |
| MMMU-Pro (Vals) | – | 88.0% |
| MortgageTax | – | 64.0% |
| MysteryMechanism | – | 23.9% |
| ProgramBench | – | 0.0% |
| Public Benefits Bench | – | 67.1% |
| SAGE | – | 51.3% |
| SkillsBench | – | 42.0% |
| Tax Agent Bench | – | 66.0% |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Vals) | – | 34.3% |
| Terminal-Bench Science | – | 1.4% |
| Vals Multimodal Index | – | 65.4% |
| Vibe Code Bench 1-100 | – | 12.8% |
| Vibe Code Bench v1.1 | 57.6% | 64.7% |
| SWE Atlas: Codebase QnA | 33.3% | – |
| SWE Atlas: Refactoring | 35.6% | – |
| SWE Atlas: Test Writing | 36.7% | – |
| LMArena Maths | 1507 | 1497 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1479 | 1470 |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1500 | 1474 |
| LMArena Multi-turn | 1512 | 1492 |
| LMArena Longer Queries | 1517 | 1492 |
| LMArena Document | 1494 | – |
| Chess Puzzles | 17.0% | – |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 15.0% | – |
| CL-bench | 20.7% | – |
| CL-bench Life | 13.6% | – |
| METR Time Horizons | 78.9% | – |
| ForecastBench | 60.0% | – |
| GBAEval | 44.1% | – |
| ALE-Bench | 996.5 | – |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 8017.6 | – |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA) | – | 38.9% |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (AA) | – | 88.8% |
| AutomationBench | – | 56.2% |
| GDP.pdf | – | 22.8% |
| MLCR | – | 20.0% |
| EnterpriseOps-Gym | – | 47.6% |
| AA-Omniscience: accuracy | – | 31.9% |
| AA-Omniscience: non-hallucination | – | 71.2% |
| AA-Briefcase v1.1 | – | 1617 |
Data as of 2026-10-11. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.
Claude Opus 4.6 vs Qwen3.8 Max: questions
- Is Claude Opus 4.6 better than Qwen3.8 Max?
- Qwen3.8 Max (max) leads on quality: 64.2 vs 63.1. The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; Qwen3.8 Max (max) is ahead overall as of 2026-10-11, but check the category scores for your use.
- Is Claude Opus 4.6 better than Qwen3.8 Max for coding?
- Qwen3.8 Max scores higher in coding (65 vs 60 on the category index, where 50 is average).
- Is Claude Opus 4.6 better than Qwen3.8 Max for agentic tasks?
- Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher in agentic tasks (69 vs 58 on the category index, where 50 is average).
- Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.6 or Qwen3.8 Max?
- Qwen3.8 Max is cheaper: $3.00 against $10.00 per million tokens, blended at three input tokens per output token.
- Which is faster, Claude Opus 4.6 or Qwen3.8 Max?
- Claude Opus 4.6 streams faster: 40 against 37 output tokens per second.
- Which has the larger context window?
- Both accept 1M tokens of context.