Claude Sonnet 5 vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
Claude Sonnet 5 
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next Verdict
- Claude Sonnet 5 (high) and Qwen3.8-Flash-Next are level on quality (62.2 vs 61.6).
- Claude Sonnet 5 (high) is stronger in composite, human preference, knowledge, maths, reasoning.
- Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is stronger in agents & tools, coding, long context, multimodal.
- Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is 17× cheaper ($0.230 vs $4.00 per 1M blended).
| Metric | Claude Sonnet 5 (high) | Qwen3.8-Flash-Next |
|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 62.2 | 61.6 |
| Agents & tools score | 62.0 | 65.8 |
| Coding score | 61.5 | 71.2 |
| Composite score | 69.6 | 67.4 |
| Human preference score | 65.9 | – |
| Knowledge score | 62.4 | 59.6 |
| Long context score | 64.7 | 66.3 |
| Maths score | 66.9 | – |
| Multimodal score | 62.6 | 64.3 |
| Reasoning score | 69.6 | 63.4 |
| Blended price $/M | $4.00 | $0.230 |
| Output speed | 64 tok/s | 55 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | 2.9 s | 39.0 s |
| Context window | 1M | 256k |
| SciCode | 48.6% | – |
| WeirdML | 68.8% | – |
| LMArena Text | 1461 | – |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1489 | – |
| LMArena Coding | 1521 | – |
| LMArena WebDev | 1537 | 1635 |
| LMArena Vision | 1277 | – |
| LMArena Agent | 6 | -0.1 |
| 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% |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | – | 77.1% |
| AA Intelligence Index | 32.0 | 39.9 |
| AA-LCR | 76.7% | 79.7% |
| MMMU-Pro | – | 79.8% |
| AA-Omniscience | -3.7 | -9.7 |
| GPQA Diamond (AA) | – | 92.3% |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | 35.7% | 38.0% |
| SciCode (AA) | 54.3% | 50.6% |
| CritPt | 15.1% | 11.1% |
| GDPval (AA) | 40.4% | 57.4% |
| τ²-Bench Banking (AA) | – | 45.4% |
| LMArena Maths | 1476 | – |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1437 | – |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1465 | – |
| LMArena Multi-turn | 1473 | – |
| LMArena Longer Queries | 1482 | – |
| LMArena Document | 1476 | – |
| DeepSWE | 48.2% | – |
| CursorBench | 56.9% | – |
| ALE-Bench | 1463.1 | – |
Data as of 2026-09-19. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.
Claude Sonnet 5 vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next: questions
- Is Claude Sonnet 5 better than Qwen3.8-Flash-Next?
- Claude Sonnet 5 (high) and Qwen3.8-Flash-Next are level on quality (62.2 vs 61.6). The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; Claude Sonnet 5 (high) is ahead overall as of 2026-09-19, but check the category scores for your use.
- Is Claude Sonnet 5 better than Qwen3.8-Flash-Next for coding?
- Qwen3.8-Flash-Next scores higher in coding (71 vs 62 on the category index, where 50 is average).
- Is Claude Sonnet 5 better than Qwen3.8-Flash-Next for agentic tasks?
- Qwen3.8-Flash-Next scores higher in agentic tasks (66 vs 62 on the category index, where 50 is average).
- Which is cheaper, Claude Sonnet 5 or Qwen3.8-Flash-Next?
- Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is cheaper: $0.230 against $4.00 per million tokens, blended at three input tokens per output token.
- Which is faster, Claude Sonnet 5 or Qwen3.8-Flash-Next?
- Claude Sonnet 5 streams faster: 64 against 55 output tokens per second.
- Which has the larger context window?
- Claude Sonnet 5 accepts more context: 1M against 256k tokens.