Claude Opus 5 vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
Claude Opus 5 
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next Verdict
- Claude Opus 5 leads on quality: 70.0 vs 59.1.
- Claude Opus 5 is stronger in agents & tools, coding, composite, human preference, knowledge, maths, multimodal, reasoning.
- Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is stronger in long context.
- Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is 43× cheaper ($0.230 vs $10.00 per 1M blended).
| Metric | Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3.8-Flash-Next |
|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 70.0 | 59.1 |
| Agents & tools score | 71.5 | 49.4 |
| Coding score | 74.5 | 70.8 |
| Composite score | 93.1 | 67.3 |
| Human preference score | 78.2 | – |
| Knowledge score | 70.6 | 59.5 |
| Long context score | 66.2 | 66.4 |
| Maths score | 67.1 | – |
| Multimodal score | 69.4 | 64.3 |
| Reasoning score | 71.5 | – |
| Blended price $/M | $10.00 | $0.230 |
| Output speed | 51 tok/s | 54 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | 93.0 s | 39.9 s |
| Context window | 1M | 256k |
| GPQA Diamond | 92.9% | – |
| OTIS Mock AIME | 97.8% | – |
| SimpleBench | 80.6% | – |
| WeirdML | 86.3% | – |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 162.6 | – |
| LMArena WebDev | – | 1631 |
| LMArena Agent | – | 0.8 |
| LiveBench | – | 76.2% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | – | 87.4% |
| LiveBench Coding | – | 72.5% |
| LiveBench Agentic Coding | – | 61.6% |
| LiveBench Mathematics | – | 85.8% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | – | 74.2% |
| LiveBench Language | – | 74.6% |
| AA Intelligence Index | 50.7 | 39.9 |
| AA-LCR | 79.3% | 79.7% |
| MMMU-Pro | 84.7% | 79.8% |
| AA-Omniscience | 37.1 | -9.7 |
| GPQA Diamond (AA) | 93.2% | 92.3% |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | 54.9% | 38.0% |
| SciCode (AA) | 56.4% | 50.6% |
| LiveCodeBench | 89.0% | – |
| MMLU-Pro | 91.6% | – |
| IOI | 91.7% | – |
| LegalBench | 87.0% | – |
| CorpFin | 73.2% | – |
| TaxEval | 75.1% | – |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals) | 84.6% | – |
| SWE-bench (Vals) | 97.0% | – |
| GPQA Diamond (Vals) | 93.4% | – |
| Vals Index | 67.2 | – |
| HiL-Bench | 57.0% | – |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1385 | – |
Data as of 2026-09-10. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.
Claude Opus 5 vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next: questions
- Is Claude Opus 5 better than Qwen3.8-Flash-Next?
- Claude Opus 5 leads on quality: 70.0 vs 59.1. The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; Claude Opus 5 is ahead overall as of 2026-09-10, but check the category scores for your use.
- Is Claude Opus 5 better than Qwen3.8-Flash-Next for coding?
- Claude Opus 5 scores higher in coding (75 vs 71 on the category index, where 50 is average).
- Is Claude Opus 5 better than Qwen3.8-Flash-Next for agentic tasks?
- Claude Opus 5 scores higher in agentic tasks (72 vs 49 on the category index, where 50 is average).
- Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 5 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 5 or Qwen3.8-Flash-Next?
- Qwen3.8-Flash-Next streams faster: 54 against 51 output tokens per second.
- Which has the larger context window?
- Claude Opus 5 accepts more context: 1M against 256k tokens.