Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs Claude Opus 5.5
At a Glance
| Compare | Claude Opus 5.5Anthropic | |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing and Limits | ||
| Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $2.00Deepinfra ↗ · Sep 23, 2026 | $4.00Anthropic ↗ · Sep 22, 2026 |
| Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $6.00Deepinfra ↗ · Sep 23, 2026 | $20.00Anthropic ↗ · Sep 22, 2026 |
| Context windowMaximum documented tokens | 262K | 1,000K |
| Model facts checked | Aug 28, 2026View model evidence → | Sep 22, 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 | Qwen3.8-2.4T-A95B | Claude Opus 5.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Qwen | Anthropic |
| Family | Qwen3 8 2 4t A95b | Claude 5 5 |
| Model | Qwen3.8-2.4T-A95B | Claude Opus 5.5 |
| Version | Qwen3.8-2.4T-A95B | Claude Opus 5.5 |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | Unknown | 2026-09-22 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Unknown | 2026-06-01 |
| Input modalities | Text | Text, Image |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 262K | 1,000K |
| Total parameters | 2.4T | Unknown |
| Active parameters | 95B | Unknown |
| License | other | Unknown |
| Open weights | Yes | No |
| API available | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | Yes | No |
| Provider access | Deepinfra (Standard), Fireworks Ai (Standard), Hugging Face (Standard), Openrouter (Standard), Together Ai (Standard) | Anthropic (Standard) |
| Capabilities | chat, generation, reasoning, tools | chat, generation, reasoning, tools |
| Message Batches max output (beta) | Unknown | 300000 tokens |
| Default effort | Unknown | medium |
| Retirement commitment | Unknown | Not sooner than September 22, 2027 |
| Thinking | Unknown | Adaptive (always on) |
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B Capabilities
Claude Opus 5.5 Capabilities
Related Comparisons
All text comparisons →| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
| vs | Claude Opus 5Anthropic | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs |  GPT-6 AstraOpenAI | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs | Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs |  Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs |  DeepSeek-V4.1-FlashDeepSeek | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs | Grok 4.6xAI | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs |  Qwen3.8-MaxQwen | family variantstext | |
| vs |  Kimi-K3Moonshot AI | cross-developer peerstext | |
 MiniMax-M3MiniMax | vs | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs |  GLM-5.3Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs |  Hy4 previewTencent | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs | Seed 2.1 ProByteDance Seed | cross-developer peerstext |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs Claude Opus 5.5 FAQs
Is Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B or Claude Opus 5.5 better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B and Claude Opus 5.5, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B or Claude Opus 5.5?+
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is $2.00 and Claude Opus 5.5 is $4.00 per million tokens, so Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is cheaper on this metric. Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is $6.00 and Claude Opus 5.5 is $20.00 per million tokens, so Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is cheaper on this metric.
Which has a larger context window, Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B or Claude Opus 5.5?+
Claude Opus 5.5 has the larger sourced context window. Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B supports 262K and Claude Opus 5.5 supports 1,000K.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B or Claude Opus 5.5?+
There is no overall benchmark winner: At least two independently verified, protocol-matched benchmarks are required for an overall winner.
Can Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B or Claude Opus 5.5 be self-hosted?+
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is the only model in this pair currently marked as self-hostable. Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is open weight; Claude Opus 5.5 is not marked open weight.
Can Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B and Claude Opus 5.5 understand images?+
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is not documented with image input; Claude Opus 5.5 is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B or Claude Opus 5.5?+
Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is — and Claude Opus 5.5 is 128K.
Do Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B and Claude Opus 5.5 support reasoning and tool use?+
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B: reasoning and tool calling. Claude Opus 5.5: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B or Claude Opus 5.5?+
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B has 5 sourced provider routes; Claude Opus 5.5 has 1, so Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B or Claude Opus 5.5?+
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.