Claude Opus 4.8 vs Qwen3.7 Flash
At a Glance
| Compare | Claude Opus 4.8Anthropic |  Qwen3.7 FlashQwen |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing and Limits | ||
| Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $5.00Anthropic ↗ · Sep 3, 2026 | $0.030Openrouter ↗ · Oct 19, 2026 |
| Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $25.00Anthropic ↗ · Sep 3, 2026 | $0.13Openrouter ↗ · Oct 19, 2026 |
| Context windowMaximum documented tokens | 1,000K | 1,000K |
| Model facts checked | Aug 29, 2026View model evidence → | Sep 3, 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
Side-by-Side Facts
| Field | Claude Opus 4.8 | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Anthropic | Qwen |
| Family | Claude 4 8 | Qwen3 7 |
| Model | Claude Opus 4.8 | Qwen3.7 Flash |
| Version | Claude Opus 4.8 | Qwen3.7 Flash |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | 2026-05-28 | 2026-07-15 |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2026-01-01 | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image, Video |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 1,000K | 1,000K |
| Total parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| Active parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| License | Unknown | Unknown |
| Open weights | No | No |
| API available | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | No | No |
| Provider access | Anthropic (Standard), Deepinfra (Standard) | Alibaba Cloud Model Studio (Standard), Openrouter (Standard) |
| Capabilities | chat, generation, reasoning, tools | agents, chat, generation, reasoning, structured_outputs, tools, vision |
Claude Opus 4.8 Capabilities
Qwen3.7 Flash Capabilities
Related Comparisons
All image comparisons →| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
Claude Opus 4.8Anthropic | vs |  GPT-5.6 TerraOpenAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Fable 5Anthropic | vs | Claude Opus 4.8Anthropic | family variantsimage, text |
Claude Haiku 4.5Anthropic | vs | Claude Opus 4.8Anthropic | family variantsimage, text |
Claude Opus 4.6Anthropic | vs | Claude Opus 4.8Anthropic | family variantsimage, text |
Claude Opus 4.8Anthropic | vs | Claude Opus 5Anthropic | family variantsimage, text |
Claude Opus 4.8Anthropic | vs | GPT-4.1 MiniOpenAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Opus 4.8Anthropic | vs | GPT-5.4OpenAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Opus 4.8Anthropic | vs | GPT-5.6 LunaOpenAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Opus 4.8Anthropic | vs | GPT-5.6 SolOpenAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Opus 4.8Anthropic | vs | cross-developer peersimage, text | |
Claude Opus 4.8Anthropic | vs | Grok 4.3xAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
Claude Opus 4.8 vs Qwen3.7 Flash FAQs
Is Claude Opus 4.8 or Qwen3.7 Flash better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Claude Opus 4.8 and Qwen3.7 Flash, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.8 or Qwen3.7 Flash?+
Claude Opus 4.8 is $5.00 and Qwen3.7 Flash is $0.030 per million tokens, so Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper on this metric. Claude Opus 4.8 is $25.00 and Qwen3.7 Flash is $0.13 per million tokens, so Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper on this metric.
Which has a larger context window, Claude Opus 4.8 or Qwen3.7 Flash?+
Both models have the same sourced context window: 1,000,000 tokens each.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Claude Opus 4.8 or Qwen3.7 Flash?+
There is no overall benchmark winner: At least two independently verified, protocol-matched benchmarks are required for an overall winner.
Can Claude Opus 4.8 or Qwen3.7 Flash be self-hosted?+
Both models have the same sourced self-hosting status: unsupported. Claude Opus 4.8 is not marked open weight; Qwen3.7 Flash is not marked open weight.
Can Claude Opus 4.8 and Qwen3.7 Flash understand images?+
Claude Opus 4.8 is documented with image input; Qwen3.7 Flash is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, Claude Opus 4.8 or Qwen3.7 Flash?+
Claude Opus 4.8 has the larger sourced maximum output. Claude Opus 4.8 supports 128,000 tokens and Qwen3.7 Flash supports 65,536 tokens.
Do Claude Opus 4.8 and Qwen3.7 Flash support reasoning and tool use?+
Claude Opus 4.8: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Qwen3.7 Flash: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, Claude Opus 4.8 or Qwen3.7 Flash?+
Claude Opus 4.8 has 2 sourced provider routes; Qwen3.7 Flash has 2, a tie.
Which offers better value, Claude Opus 4.8 or Qwen3.7 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.