Qwen3.8 27B vs Claude Opus 4.5

At a Glance

Compare
Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency
IntelligenceHigher is better · MM Intelligence v2.5#30 of 4654.0 score · 2/3 sources · provisional · missing ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 36.0–69.4#27 of 4655.4 score · 2/3 sources · provisional · missing ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 36.9–70.3
CostLower is better · Published-token output estimate#16 of 44$0.072 per LiveBench case#40 of 44$0.380 per LiveBench case
EfficiencyHigher is better · MM Efficiency v1.5#17 of 3854.8 score · 2/3 sources · provisional · missing ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 45.8–62.5#36 of 3838.0 score · 2/3 sources · provisional · missing ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 28.8–45.4
Pricing and Limits
Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens$0.20Deepinfra · Sep 21, 2026$5.00Anthropic · Sep 3, 2026
Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens$2.50Deepinfra · Sep 21, 2026$25.00Anthropic · Sep 3, 2026
Context windowMaximum documented tokens262K200K
Model facts checkedAug 28, 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

All benchmark results →
BenchmarkQwen3.8-27BClaude Opus 4.5
LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-09-13-d25aabda0010 · arena_rating · statistical tie1,439.2799% of row best · rating · qwen3.8-27b; 95% CI [1432.84410050, 1445.69542028]; votes 10697; rank 681,447.08100% of row best · rating · claude-opus-4-5-20251101-high-32k; 95% CI [1443.17965746, 1450.98398333]; votes 36239; rank 49
LiveBench2026-06-25 · overall · leader78.02100% of row best · percent · qwen3.8-27b · 28,740 output tokens / case77.3999% of row best · percent · claude-opus-4-5-20251101-thinking-64k-high-effort · 15,203 output tokens / case
Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above · 1 tie1 benchmark winNo overall winner0 benchmark winsNo 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

FieldQwen3.8-27BClaude Opus 4.5
DeveloperQwenAnthropic
FamilyQwen3 8 27bClaude 4
ModelQwen3.8-27BClaude Opus 4.5
VersionQwen3.8-27BClaude Opus 4.5
Lifecycleactiveactive
ReleasedUnknown2025-11-24
Knowledge cutoffUnknown2025-05-01
Input modalitiesText, ImageText, Image
Output modalitiesTextText
Context window262K200K
Total parameters27.8BUnknown
Active parametersUnknownUnknown
Licenseapache-2.0Unknown
Open weightsYesNo
API availableYesYes
Self-hostableYesNo
Provider accessDeepinfra (Standard), Hugging Face (Standard), Openrouter (Standard)Anthropic (Standard)
Capabilitieschat, generation, reasoning, toolschat, generation, reasoning, structured_outputs, tools

Qwen3.8 27B Capabilities

chatgenerationreasoningtools
Serving providers3
Canonical IDQwen/Qwen3.8-27B

Claude Opus 4.5 Capabilities

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

Primary Evidence

Sources and Freshness

Questions

Qwen3.8 27B vs Claude Opus 4.5 FAQs

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

This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Qwen3.8 27B and Claude Opus 4.5, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.

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

Qwen3.8 27B is $0.20 and Claude Opus 4.5 is $5.00 per million tokens, so Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper on this metric. Qwen3.8 27B is $2.50 and Claude Opus 4.5 is $25.00 per million tokens, so Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper on this metric.

Which has a larger context window, Qwen3.8 27B or Claude Opus 4.5?+

Qwen3.8 27B has the larger sourced context window. Qwen3.8 27B supports 262K and Claude Opus 4.5 supports 200K.

Which performs better in benchmarks, Qwen3.8 27B or Claude Opus 4.5?+

There is no overall benchmark winner: An overall winner requires at least two decisive benchmarks from at least two original publishers.

Can Qwen3.8 27B or Claude Opus 4.5 be self-hosted?+

Qwen3.8 27B is the only model in this pair currently marked as self-hostable. Qwen3.8 27B is open weight; Claude Opus 4.5 is not marked open weight.

Can Qwen3.8 27B and Claude Opus 4.5 understand images?+

Qwen3.8 27B is documented with image input; Claude Opus 4.5 is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.

Which can generate longer answers, Qwen3.8 27B or Claude Opus 4.5?+

Qwen3.8 27B has the larger sourced maximum output: Qwen3.8 27B supports 131K and Claude Opus 4.5 supports 64K output tokens.

Do Qwen3.8 27B and Claude Opus 4.5 support reasoning and tool use?+

Qwen3.8 27B: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Claude Opus 4.5: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.

Which is available from more inference providers, Qwen3.8 27B or Claude Opus 4.5?+

Qwen3.8 27B has 3 sourced provider routes; Claude Opus 4.5 has 1, so Qwen3.8 27B has broader tracked availability.

Which offers better value, Qwen3.8 27B or Claude Opus 4.5?+

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.

Send Feedback