Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.1 vs Qwen3.8 Max
Qwen3.8 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.8 to 41.0 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 27 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 27 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.1 scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.8 Max in 10 categories; 10 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.8 Max leads 73.2 to 22.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3): 12.6% for Claude Opus 4.1 and 74.7% for Qwen3.8 Max.
- Qwen3.8 Max is cheaper at $2 / $6 per million input/output tokens, against $15 / $75 for Claude Opus 4.1.
- Qwen3.8 Max accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 200K.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen3.8 Max | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 41.0 | 56.8 |
| Released | 2025-08-05 | 2026-08-02 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 200K | 1M |
| Max output | 32K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $15 | $2 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $75 | $6 |
| Results tracked | 48 | 39 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.8 Max leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 44.4 (#73), Qwen3.8 Max: 53.5 (#29)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1390 | 1674 |
| LMArena Coding | 1479 | 1502 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 73.3% | — |
| DeepSWE | — | 57.5% |
| FrontierSWE | — | 17.8% |
| SciCode | — | 53.2% |
| WeirdML | 45.9% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 674.77 | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.34 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Qwen3.8 Max leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 35.0 (#41), Qwen3.8 Max: 45.4 (#14)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 38% | — |
| APEX-Agents | — | 63.3% |
| GDPval | 43.6% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | — | 55.1% |
| Cybench | 42% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 48.3% | — |
| GDP.pdf | — | 23.2% |
| LMArena Search | 1148 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 66.8% | — |
Reasoning Qwen3.8 Max leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 32.2 (#76), Qwen3.8 Max: 54.4 (#26)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 7% | 40% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1443 | 1496 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 21% | 38% |
| DTBench | 80% | 92% |
| LMCA | 37.1% | 46.2% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 144.12 | 156.41 |
| SimpleBench | 60% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 88.3% |
| CritPt | — | 20% |
| EnigmaEval | 7.2% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 7.9% | — |
| ForecastBench | 62 | — |
Math Qwen3.8 Max leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 22.3 (#277), Qwen3.8 Max: 73.2 (#20)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 12.6% | 74.7% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 2.4% | 46.3% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 68.9% | 100% |
| LMArena Math | 1431 | 1499 |
| ProofBench | — | 58% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 7.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | — |
Knowledge Qwen3.8 Max leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 42.0 (#101), Qwen3.8 Max: 61.7 (#27)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 77.3% | 92.7% |
| LMArena Expert | 1439 | 1507 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 11.5% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 47.3% |
| Confabulations | 17.1% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 11.8% | — |
Multimodal Qwen3.8 Max leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 26.8 (#119), Qwen3.8 Max: 37.2 (#75)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1314 |
| VPCT | 35% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | — | 20% |
Multilingual Qwen3.8 Max leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 52.0 (#95), Qwen3.8 Max: 56.7 (#18)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1405 | 1472 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1427 | 1538 |
| LMArena French | 1431 | 1503 |
| LMArena German | 1413 | 1483 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1378 | 1467 |
| LMArena Korean | 1380 | 1461 |
| LMArena Russian | 1422 | 1481 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1448 | 1492 |
Instruction Following Qwen3.8 Max leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 75.6 (#58), Qwen3.8 Max: 77.6 (#17)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1435 | 1479 |
Long Context Qwen3.8 Max leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 44.5 (#63), Qwen3.8 Max: 45.6 (#31)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1455 | 1489 |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.8 Max leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 62.4 (#74), Qwen3.8 Max: 67.1 (#30)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1419 | 1483 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1412 | 1479 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1444 | 1489 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 84.7% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4.1 better than Qwen3.8 Max?
Qwen3.8 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.8 to 41.0 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.1 or Qwen3.8 Max?
Qwen3.8 Max is cheaper. It lists at $2 per million input tokens and $6 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.1 lists at $15 and $75.
Is Claude Opus 4.1 or Qwen3.8 Max better for coding?
Qwen3.8 Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.5 versus 44.4 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.8 Max does, with 1M tokens against 200K.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.1 and Qwen3.8 Max share?
27 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.1 has 48 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.8 Max has 39.