Model comparison
Claude 2.1 vs Qwen3.8 27B
Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.0 to 25.2 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude 2.1 scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.8 27B in 4 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.8 27B leads 37.1 to 10.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is DTBench: 51% for Claude 2.1 and 88% for Qwen3.8 27B.
- Qwen3.8 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude 2.1 | Qwen3.8 27B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 25.2 | 46.0 |
| Released | 2023-11-21 | 2026-08-14 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | 262K |
| Max output | — | 33K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.99 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $1.49 |
| Results tracked | 7 | 31 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.8 27B leads
Claude 2.1: 26.2 (#327), Qwen3.8 27B: 50.5 (#44)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1593 |
| SciCode | — | 46.6% |
| WeirdML | 7.1% | — |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1482 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 32.9 (#57)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | — | 47.5% |
Reasoning Qwen3.8 27B leads
Claude 2.1: 21.4 (#221), Qwen3.8 27B: 41.0 (#54)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| DTBench | 51% | 88% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 119.27 | 149.38 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 42.4% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 54.5% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 87.5% |
| CritPt | — | 5.4% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1460 |
| LMCA | — | 41.4% |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 45% |
| ForecastBench | 54.2 | — |
Math Qwen3.8 27B leads
Claude 2.1: 10.2 (#315), Qwen3.8 27B: 37.1 (#161)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 1.9% | — |
| ProofBench | — | 16% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1456 |
Knowledge Qwen3.8 27B leads
Claude 2.1: 15.4 (#292), Qwen3.8 27B: 41.6 (#109)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 33% | — |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1482 |
| MMLU | 73.5% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 41.3 (#37)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1271 |
Multilingual Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 53.7 (#60)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1430 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1504 |
| LMArena French | — | 1465 |
| LMArena German | — | 1438 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1384 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1393 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1415 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1448 |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 75.8 (#53)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1439 |
Long Context Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 44.3 (#70)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1450 |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 65.8 (#43)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1441 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1384 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1671 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1441 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude 2.1 better than Qwen3.8 27B?
Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.0 to 25.2 on the Noometry Index.
Is Claude 2.1 or Qwen3.8 27B better for coding?
Qwen3.8 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.5 versus 26.2 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Claude 2.1 and Qwen3.8 27B share?
2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude 2.1 has 7 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.8 27B has 31.