Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.8 vs Qwen3.5-Flash
Claude Opus 4.8 is the stronger model overall, scoring 60.7 to 42.3 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5-Flash costs 57× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.8's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 31 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 31 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.8 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen3.5-Flash in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Claude Opus 4.8 leads 78.2 to 36.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3): 80% for Claude Opus 4.8 and 18.2% for Qwen3.5-Flash.
- Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.8.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 4.8 | Qwen3.5-Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 60.7 | 42.3 |
| Released | 2026-05-28 | 2026-02-23 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1M | 1M |
| Max output | 128K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $5 | $0.10 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $25 | $0.40 |
| Results tracked | 65 | 32 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 60.2 (#9), Qwen3.5-Flash: 33.9 (#234)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1556 | 1243 |
| LMArena Coding | 1491 | 1412 |
| ALE-Bench | 1,564 | 221.8 |
| DeepSWE | 59% | — |
| FrontierCode | 46.5% | — |
| SciCode | 53.5% | — |
| GSO | 47.1% | — |
| WeirdML | 82.9% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.8: 47.6 (#10), Qwen3.5-Flash: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | 5,787 | 462.69 |
| APEX-Agents | 48.9% | — |
| OSWorld 2.0 | 20.6% | — |
| Remote Labor Index | 8.3% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 39.7% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 50.2% | — |
| PostTrainBench | 33.8% | — |
| GBAEval | 70.9% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 24% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1204 | — |
Reasoning Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 64.6 (#14), Qwen3.5-Flash: 32.9 (#63)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 34% | 21% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1481 | 1404 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 36% | 20% |
| DTBench | 94.9% | 82.9% |
| LMCA | 57.5% | 29.1% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 158.3 | 143.98 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 72.1% | — |
| SimpleBench | 64.8% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 88.8% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 91.1% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 92.5% | — |
| CritPt | 20.9% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 23.5% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 28.6% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 87.5% | — |
| Bench to the Future 3 | 0.14 | — |
| ForecastBench | 59.9 | — |
Math Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 78.2 (#11), Qwen3.5-Flash: 36.3 (#117)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 80% | 18.2% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 98.3% | 84.4% |
| LMArena Math | 1487 | 1407 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 47.2% | 6.2% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 31.3% | 0% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 56.1% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 91.8% | — |
| ProofBench | 69% | — |
Knowledge Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 61.3 (#26), Qwen3.5-Flash: 43.2 (#84)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 91% | 82.3% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 53% | 20.3% |
| LMArena Expert | 1501 | 1408 |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 10.5% |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.8: 43.2 (#20), Qwen3.5-Flash: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1295 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 14.5% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 42.5% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1475 | — |
Multilingual Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 55.4 (#31), Qwen3.5-Flash: 50.7 (#116)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1450 | 1385 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1509 | 1446 |
| LMArena French | 1482 | 1412 |
| LMArena German | 1470 | 1389 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1440 | 1369 |
| LMArena Korean | 1432 | 1344 |
| LMArena Russian | 1476 | 1379 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1470 | 1399 |
Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 77.6 (#22), Qwen3.5-Flash: 72.8 (#133)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1476 | 1374 |
Long Context Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 45.4 (#37), Qwen3.5-Flash: 42.4 (#119)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1482 | 1392 |
Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 72.1 (#17), Qwen3.5-Flash: 58.2 (#117)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1460 | 1397 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1453 | 1343 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1476 | 1393 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1840 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1281 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4.8 better than Qwen3.5-Flash?
Claude Opus 4.8 is the stronger model overall, scoring 60.7 to 42.3 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5-Flash costs 57× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.8's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.8 or Qwen3.5-Flash?
Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.8 lists at $5 and $25.
Is Claude Opus 4.8 or Qwen3.5-Flash better for coding?
Claude Opus 4.8 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 60.2 versus 33.9 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Both accept 1M tokens.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.8 and Qwen3.5-Flash share?
31 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.8 has 65 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-Flash has 32.