Noometry

Model comparison

Claude 3 Sonnet vs Qwen3.8 27B

Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.3 to 28.8 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 20 shared benchmarks.

Claude 3 Sonnet Anthropic

28.8

Rank #311 Confirmed

Qwen3.8 27B Alibaba (Qwen)

45.3

Rank #64 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 20 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude 3 Sonnet scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.8 27B in 9 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.8 27B leads 35.7 to 10.0.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is DTBench: 53.6% for Claude 3 Sonnet and 88% for Qwen3.8 27B.
  • Qwen3.8 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude 3 SonnetQwen3.8 27B
ProviderAnthropicAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index28.845.3
Released2024-02-292026-08-14
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window—262K
Max output—33K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.99
Output $ / M tokens—$1.49
Results tracked3028

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.8 27B leads

Claude 3 Sonnet: 29.2 (#296), Qwen3.8 27B: 50.3 (#42)

BenchmarkClaude 3 SonnetQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Coding12231487
LMArena WebDev—1592
SciCode—46.6%
WeirdML10.2%—
BigCodeBench Instruct42.7%—
BigCodeBench Complete53.8%—
HumanEval+64%—
MBPP+69.3%—

Reasoning Qwen3.8 27B leads

Claude 3 Sonnet: 19.7 (#232), Qwen3.8 27B: 31.5 (#71)

BenchmarkClaude 3 SonnetQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Hard Prompts11971459
DTBench53.6%88%
Epoch Capabilities Index120.69149.38
NYT Connections (extended)—54.5%
CritPt—5.4%
LMCA—41.4%
Surface Evolver Bench—45%
WinoGrande75.1%—

Math Qwen3.8 27B leads

Claude 3 Sonnet: 10.0 (#305), Qwen3.8 27B: 35.7 (#139)

BenchmarkClaude 3 SonnetQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Math12131453
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-20252.5%—
ProofBench—16%
MATH Level 518.2%—

Knowledge Qwen3.8 27B leads

Claude 3 Sonnet: 21.1 (#271), Qwen3.8 27B: 40.9 (#105)

BenchmarkClaude 3 SonnetQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Expert11731482
GPQA Diamond40.6%—
MMLU75.9%—

Multimodal Qwen3.8 27B leads

Claude 3 Sonnet: 24.7 (#120), Qwen3.8 27B: 40.5 (#36)

BenchmarkClaude 3 SonnetQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Vision9841270

Multilingual Qwen3.8 27B leads

Claude 3 Sonnet: 38.0 (#229), Qwen3.8 27B: 54.0 (#54)

BenchmarkClaude 3 SonnetQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Non-English12051431
LMArena Chinese11881504
LMArena French12281468
LMArena German12041435
LMArena Japanese11311392
LMArena Korean11281389
LMArena Russian12271421
LMArena Spanish12041444

Instruction Following Qwen3.8 27B leads

Claude 3 Sonnet: 63.1 (#230), Qwen3.8 27B: 75.8 (#54)

BenchmarkClaude 3 SonnetQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Instruction Following12001436

Long Context Qwen3.8 27B leads

Claude 3 Sonnet: 36.7 (#223), Qwen3.8 27B: 44.3 (#66)

BenchmarkClaude 3 SonnetQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Longer Query12111448

Writing & Preference Qwen3.8 27B leads

Claude 3 Sonnet: 42.3 (#233), Qwen3.8 27B: 65.9 (#41)

BenchmarkClaude 3 SonnetQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text12181441
LMArena Creative Writing11861382
LMArena Multi-Turn12271443
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—1671

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude 3 Sonnet better than Qwen3.8 27B?

Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.3 to 28.8 on the Noometry Index.

Is Claude 3 Sonnet or Qwen3.8 27B better for coding?

Qwen3.8 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.3 versus 29.2 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Claude 3 Sonnet and Qwen3.8 27B share?

20 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude 3 Sonnet has 30 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.8 27B has 28.

Related comparisons

Go deeper