Claude Opus 4.5 vs Qwen3.8 Flash

At a Glance

Compare
Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency
IntelligenceHigher is better · MM Intelligence v2.5#27 of 4655.4 score · 2/3 sources · provisional · missing ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 36.9–70.3UnrankedNot in the 46-model eligible cohort
CostLower is better · Published-token output estimate#40 of 44$0.380 per LiveBench case#4 of 44$0.021 per LiveBench case
EfficiencyHigher is better · MM Efficiency v1.5#36 of 3838.0 score · 2/3 sources · provisional · missing ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 28.8–45.4UnrankedNot in the 38-model eligible cohort
Pricing and Limits
Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens$5.00Anthropic · Sep 3, 2026$0.113Deepinfra · Sep 22, 2026
Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens$25.00Anthropic · Sep 3, 2026$0.382Deepinfra · Sep 22, 2026
Context windowMaximum documented tokens200K1,000K
Model facts checkedSep 3, 2026View model evidence →Aug 29, 2026View model evidence →

Token prices are the lowest available sourced USD rates; input and output may use different providers. Cost ranking estimates output spend on LiveBench, not a full request bill. Ranking methodology →

Available Benchmarks

All benchmark results →
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen3.8-Flash
LiveBench2026-06-25 · overall · leader77.3998% of row best · percent · claude-opus-4-5-20251101-thinking-64k-high-effort · 15,203 output tokens / case79.12100% of row best · percent · qwen3.8-flash-next · 54,438 output tokens / case
Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above0 benchmark winsNo overall winner1 benchmark winNo overall winner

Third-party benchmark Only like-for-like primary-publisher results are shown; raw scores, relative scores, configuration, and token spend remain visible.

Side-by-Side Facts

FieldClaude Opus 4.5Qwen3.8-Flash
DeveloperAnthropicQwen
FamilyClaude 4Qwen3 8 Flash
ModelClaude Opus 4.5Qwen3.8-Flash
VersionClaude Opus 4.5Qwen3.8-Flash
Lifecycleactiveactive
Released2025-11-24Unknown
Knowledge cutoff2025-05-01Unknown
Input modalitiesText, ImageText, Image, Video
Output modalitiesTextText
Context window200K1,000K
Total parametersUnknownUnknown
Active parametersUnknownUnknown
LicenseUnknownUnknown
Open weightsNoNo
API availableYesYes
Self-hostableNoNo
Provider accessAnthropic (Standard)Alibaba Cloud Model Studio (Standard), Deepinfra (Standard), Openrouter (Standard), Together Ai (Standard)
Capabilitieschat, generation, reasoning, structured_outputs, toolsagents, chat, computer-use, reasoning, structured_outputs, tools, vision

Claude Opus 4.5 Capabilities

chatgenerationreasoningstructured outputstools
Serving providers1
Canonical IDanthropic/claude-opus-4-5

Qwen3.8 Flash Capabilities

agentschatcomputer-usereasoningstructured outputstoolsvision
Serving providers4
Canonical IDqwen/qwen3.8-flash

Primary Evidence

Sources and Freshness

Questions

Claude Opus 4.5 vs Qwen3.8 Flash FAQs

Is Claude Opus 4.5 or Qwen3.8 Flash better for coding?+

This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Claude Opus 4.5 and Qwen3.8 Flash, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.5 or Qwen3.8 Flash?+

Claude Opus 4.5 is $5.00 and Qwen3.8 Flash is $0.113 per million tokens, so Qwen3.8 Flash is cheaper on this metric. Claude Opus 4.5 is $25.00 and Qwen3.8 Flash is $0.382 per million tokens, so Qwen3.8 Flash is cheaper on this metric.

Which has a larger context window, Claude Opus 4.5 or Qwen3.8 Flash?+

Qwen3.8 Flash has the larger sourced context window. Claude Opus 4.5 supports 200K and Qwen3.8 Flash supports 1,000K.

Which performs better in benchmarks, Claude Opus 4.5 or Qwen3.8 Flash?+

There is no overall benchmark winner: At least two independently verified, protocol-matched benchmarks are required for an overall winner.

Can Claude Opus 4.5 or Qwen3.8 Flash be self-hosted?+

Both models have the same recorded self-hosting status: unsupported. Claude Opus 4.5 is not marked open weight; Qwen3.8 Flash is not marked open weight.

Can Claude Opus 4.5 and Qwen3.8 Flash understand images?+

Claude Opus 4.5 is documented with image input; Qwen3.8 Flash is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.

Which can generate longer answers, Claude Opus 4.5 or Qwen3.8 Flash?+

Qwen3.8 Flash has the larger sourced maximum output: Claude Opus 4.5 supports 64K and Qwen3.8 Flash supports 131K output tokens.

Do Claude Opus 4.5 and Qwen3.8 Flash support reasoning and tool use?+

Claude Opus 4.5: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Qwen3.8 Flash: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.

Which is available from more inference providers, Claude Opus 4.5 or Qwen3.8 Flash?+

Claude Opus 4.5 has 1 sourced provider route; Qwen3.8 Flash has 4, so Qwen3.8 Flash has broader tracked availability.

Which offers better value, Claude Opus 4.5 or Qwen3.8 Flash?+

There is no universal value winner. Compare the input and output prices above with the matched benchmark result for your workload: cheaper tokens can be offset by different quality, token usage, latency, or provider availability.

Send Feedback