Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.5 vs Qwen3.8 27B

Claude Opus 4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.5 to 46.0 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.8 27B costs 9.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 26 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.5 Anthropic

50.5

Rank #47 Confirmed

Qwen3.8 27B Alibaba (Qwen)

46.0

Rank #68 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 26 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.5 scores higher in 9 categories and Qwen3.8 27B in 1 category; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Claude Opus 4.5 leads 56.5 to 41.6.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is ProofBench: 36% for Claude Opus 4.5 and 16% for Qwen3.8 27B.
  • Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper at $0.99 / $1.49 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.5.
  • Qwen3.8 27B accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 200K.
  • Qwen3.8 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.5Qwen3.8 27B
ProviderAnthropicAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index50.546.0
Released2025-11-012026-08-14
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window200K262K
Max output64K33K
Input $ / M tokens$5$0.99
Output $ / M tokens$25$1.49
Results tracked6931

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

Category by category

Coding Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 54.8 (#27), Qwen3.8 27B: 50.5 (#44)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena WebDev14941593
LMArena Coding15041482
SWE-bench Verified76.7%—
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)76.8%—
SWE-bench Multilingual70.7%—
SciCode—46.6%
GSO26.5%—
WeirdML63.7%—
ALE-Bench1,025—
AlgoTune1.77—

Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 47.3 (#12), Qwen3.8 27B: 32.9 (#57)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen3.8 27B
Terminal-Bench63.1%—
APEX-Agents—47.5%
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard77.5%—
GDPval45.5%—
Remote Labor Index3.8%—
τ²-bench Airline84%—
τ²-bench Banking24.7%—
τ²-bench Retail79.6%—
τ²-bench Telecom92.3%—
Cybench82%—
DeepResearch Bench54.8%—
OSWorld66.3%—
BALROG43.5%—
LMArena Search1180—
METR Time Horizons75%—
Vending-Bench 24,967—

Reasoning Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 42.6 (#51), Qwen3.8 27B: 41.0 (#54)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen3.8 27B
ARC-AGI-237.6%42.4%
NYT Connections (extended)52.5%54.5%
ARC-AGI-180%87.5%
LMArena Hard Prompts14761460
DTBench89.9%88%
LMCA44.5%41.4%
Epoch Capabilities Index150.09149.38
SimpleBench62%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark80.2%—
CritPt—5.4%
Chess Puzzles12%—
EnigmaEval11.9%—
EBR-Bench14.3%—
Mystery Game Puzzles22%—
Surface Evolver Bench—45%
ForecastBench60.7—

Math Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 38.6 (#132), Qwen3.8 27B: 37.1 (#161)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen3.8 27B
ProofBench36%16%
LMArena Math14631456
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)34.4%—
FrontierMath Tier 44.9%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202586.1%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)20.7%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)4.2%—

Knowledge Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 56.5 (#44), Qwen3.8 27B: 41.6 (#109)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Expert14871482
GPQA Diamond86%—
Humanity's Last Exam25.2%—
SimpleQA Verified45.7%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate10.9%—

Multimodal Qwen3.8 27B leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 31.4 (#107), Qwen3.8 27B: 41.3 (#37)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Vision—1271
GeoBench75%—
VPCT40%—
Furniture Assembly28.3%—
LMArena Document1462—

Multilingual Too close to call

Claude Opus 4.5: 54.3 (#47), Qwen3.8 27B: 53.7 (#60)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Non-English14381430
LMArena Chinese14701504
LMArena French14711465
LMArena German14491438
LMArena Japanese14161384
LMArena Korean14241393
LMArena Russian14471415
LMArena Spanish14581448

Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 77.5 (#19), Qwen3.8 27B: 75.8 (#53)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Instruction Following14781439

Long Context Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 46.5 (#22), Qwen3.8 27B: 44.3 (#70)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Longer Query14801450
CL-bench21.1%—

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 68.1 (#28), Qwen3.8 27B: 65.8 (#43)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text14511441
LMArena Creative Writing14451384
EQ-Bench Creative Writing16871671
LMArena Multi-Turn14661441

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.5 better than Qwen3.8 27B?

Claude Opus 4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.5 to 46.0 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.8 27B costs 9.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.5 or Qwen3.8 27B?

Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper. It lists at $0.99 per million input tokens and $1.49 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.5 lists at $5 and $25.

Is Claude Opus 4.5 or Qwen3.8 27B better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 54.8 versus 50.5 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.8 27B does, with 262K tokens against 200K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.5 and Qwen3.8 27B share?

26 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.5 has 69 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.8 27B has 31.

Related comparisons

Go deeper