Claude Opus 4.8 vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
Claude Opus 4.8 
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next Verdict
- Claude Opus 4.8 (max) leads on quality: 64.2 vs 61.6.
- Claude Opus 4.8 (max) is stronger in composite, instruction following, knowledge, maths, reasoning.
- Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is stronger in agents & tools, coding, long context, multimodal.
- Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is 43× cheaper ($0.230 vs $10.00 per 1M blended).
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.8 (max) | Qwen3.8-Flash-Next |
|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 64.2 | 61.6 |
| Agents & tools score | 58.8 | 65.8 |
| Coding score | 62.5 | 71.2 |
| Composite score | 68.7 | 67.4 |
| Instruction following score | 62.0 | – |
| Knowledge score | 69.3 | 59.6 |
| Long context score | 65.2 | 66.3 |
| Maths score | 69.6 | – |
| Reasoning score | 72.1 | 63.4 |
| Multimodal score | – | 64.3 |
| Blended price $/M | $10.00 | $0.230 |
| Output speed | 54 tok/s | 55 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | 24.0 s | 39.0 s |
| Context window | 1M | 256k |
| GPQA Diamond | 91.0% | – |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 | 80.0% | – |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 56.1% | – |
| OTIS Mock AIME | 98.3% | – |
| SimpleQA Verified | 53.0% | – |
| Terminal-Bench | 23.6% | – |
| OSWorld-Verified 2.0 | 20.6% | – |
| SciCode | 53.5% | – |
| APEX-Agents | 42.5% | – |
| ProofBench | 69.0% | – |
| LMArena WebDev | – | 1635 |
| LMArena Agent | – | -0.1 |
| LiveBench | 76.2% | 76.2% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 89.2% | 87.4% |
| LiveBench Coding | 81.8% | 72.5% |
| LiveBench Agentic Coding | 50.5% | 61.6% |
| LiveBench Mathematics | 94.3% | 85.8% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 66.0% | 74.2% |
| LiveBench Language | 79.7% | 74.6% |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 72.0% | 77.1% |
| AA Intelligence Index | 42.0 | 39.9 |
| IFBench | 62.2% | – |
| AA-LCR | 77.7% | 79.7% |
| MMMU-Pro | – | 79.8% |
| AA-Omniscience | 28.8 | -9.7 |
| Terminal-Bench Hard | 58.3% | – |
| GPQA Diamond (AA) | 92.0% | 92.3% |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | 48.7% | 38.0% |
| SciCode (AA) | 54.4% | 50.6% |
| τ²-Bench Telecom (AA) | 94.4% | – |
| AIME 2026 | 100.0% | – |
| HMMT February 2026 | 95.5% | – |
| MathArena Apex | 81.3% | – |
| MCP Atlas | 82.2% | – |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 92.5% | – |
| CritPt | 20.9% | 11.1% |
| GDPval (AA) | 49.5% | 57.4% |
| τ²-Bench Banking (AA) | 34.2% | 45.4% |
| Analyst Agent (AA) | 45.0% | – |
| DrugDiscoveryBench | 46.8% | – |
| FORTRESS | 18.2% | – |
| Chess Puzzles | 34.0% | – |
| EBR-bench | 28.6% | – |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 36.0% | – |
| PostTrainBench | 32.9% | – |
| DeepSWE | 59.0% | – |
| LMCA | 57.5% | – |
| DTBench | 94.9% | – |
| CursorBench | 62.3% | – |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 2992.3 | – |
| GDP.pdf | 24.0% | – |
Data as of 2026-09-19. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.
Claude Opus 4.8 vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next: questions
- Is Claude Opus 4.8 better than Qwen3.8-Flash-Next?
- Claude Opus 4.8 (max) leads on quality: 64.2 vs 61.6. The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; Claude Opus 4.8 (max) is ahead overall as of 2026-09-19, but check the category scores for your use.
- Is Claude Opus 4.8 better than Qwen3.8-Flash-Next for coding?
- Qwen3.8-Flash-Next scores higher in coding (71 vs 63 on the category index, where 50 is average).
- Is Claude Opus 4.8 better than Qwen3.8-Flash-Next for agentic tasks?
- Qwen3.8-Flash-Next scores higher in agentic tasks (66 vs 59 on the category index, where 50 is average).
- Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.8 or Qwen3.8-Flash-Next?
- Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is cheaper: $0.230 against $10.00 per million tokens, blended at three input tokens per output token.
- Which is faster, Claude Opus 4.8 or Qwen3.8-Flash-Next?
- Qwen3.8-Flash-Next streams faster: 55 against 54 output tokens per second.
- Which has the larger context window?
- Claude Opus 4.8 accepts more context: 1M against 256k tokens.