Qwen3.8 27B vs Claude Opus 4.7
At a Glance
| Compare |  Qwen3.8 27BQwen | Claude Opus 4.7Anthropic |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | #11 of 4679.0 score · 3/3 sources · complete |
| CostLower is better · Published-token output estimate | #16 of 44$0.072 per LiveBench case | #37 of 44$0.286 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 | #20 of 3852.7 score · 3/3 sources · complete |
| Pricing and Limits | ||
| Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $0.20Deepinfra ↗ · Sep 22, 2026 | $5.00Anthropic ↗ · Sep 3, 2026 |
| Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $2.50Deepinfra ↗ · Sep 22, 2026 | $25.00Anthropic ↗ · Sep 3, 2026 |
| Context windowMaximum documented tokens | 262K | 1,000K |
| Model facts checked | Aug 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
| Benchmark | Qwen3.8-27B | Claude Opus 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-09-13-d25aabda0010 · arena_rating · leader | 1,439.2797% of row best · rating · qwen3.8-27b; 95% CI [1432.84410050, 1445.69542028]; votes 10697; rank 68 | 1,483.36100% of row best · rating · claude-opus-4-7; 95% CI [1479.49740558, 1487.21455301]; votes 61128; rank 12 |
| LMArena Vision Arenavision-2026-09-13-d25aabda0010 · arena_rating · leader | 1,272.1297% of row best · rating · qwen3.8-27b; 95% CI [1262.21853873, 1282.01179703]; votes 4577; rank 35 | 1,316.07100% of row best · rating · claude-opus-4-7-high; 95% CI [1309.27708749, 1322.85317424]; votes 21092; rank 5 |
| LiveBench2026-06-25 · overall · leader | 78.0296% of row best · percent · qwen3.8-27b · 28,740 output tokens / case | 80.97100% of row best · percent · claude-opus-4-7-xhigh-effort · 11,460 output tokens / case |
| Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above | 0 benchmark wins | 3 benchmark winsOverall lead |
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
| Field | Qwen3.8-27B | Claude Opus 4.7 |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Qwen | Anthropic |
| Family | Qwen3 8 27b | Claude 4 |
| Model | Qwen3.8-27B | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| Version | Qwen3.8-27B | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | Unknown | 2026-04-16 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Unknown | 2026-01-01 |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 262K | 1,000K |
| Total parameters | 27.8B | Unknown |
| Active parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| License | apache-2.0 | Unknown |
| Open weights | Yes | No |
| API available | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | Yes | No |
| Provider access | Deepinfra (Standard), Hugging Face (Standard), Openrouter (Standard) | Anthropic (Standard), Deepinfra (Standard) |
| Capabilities | chat, generation, reasoning, tools | chat, generation, reasoning, structured_outputs, tools |
Qwen3.8 27B Capabilities
Claude Opus 4.7 Capabilities
Related Comparisons
All image comparisons →| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
Qwen3.8-27BQwen | vs |  GPT-6 AstraOpenAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Qwen3.8-27BQwen | vs | Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Qwen3.8-27BQwen | vs |  Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | cross-developer peerstext |
Qwen3.8-27BQwen | vs |  DeepSeek-V4.1-FlashDeepSeek | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Qwen3.8-27BQwen | vs | Grok 4.6xAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Qwen3.8-27BQwen | vs | Qwen3.8-MaxQwen | family variantsimage, text |
Qwen3.8-27BQwen | vs |  Kimi-K3Moonshot AI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
 MiniMax-M3MiniMax | vs | Qwen3.8-27BQwen | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Qwen3.8-27BQwen | vs |  GLM-5.3Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext |
Qwen3.8-27BQwen | vs |  Hy4 previewTencent | cross-developer peerstext |
Qwen3.8-27BQwen | vs | Seed 2.1 ProByteDance Seed | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Qwen3.8-27BQwen | vs |  Mistral Large 3Mistral AI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
Qwen3.8 27B vs Claude Opus 4.7 FAQs
Is Qwen3.8 27B or Claude Opus 4.7 better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Qwen3.8 27B and Claude Opus 4.7, 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 4.7?+
Qwen3.8 27B is $0.20 and Claude Opus 4.7 is $5.00 per million tokens, so Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper on this metric. Qwen3.8 27B is $2.50 and Claude Opus 4.7 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 4.7?+
Claude Opus 4.7 has the larger sourced context window. Qwen3.8 27B supports 262K and Claude Opus 4.7 supports 1,000K.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Qwen3.8 27B or Claude Opus 4.7?+
Claude Opus 4.7 leads the current overall benchmark count. The result uses 3 protocol-matched benchmarks from 2 publishers; it is not a universal quality score.
Can Qwen3.8 27B or Claude Opus 4.7 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 4.7 is not marked open weight.
Can Qwen3.8 27B and Claude Opus 4.7 understand images?+
Qwen3.8 27B is documented with image input; Claude Opus 4.7 is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, Qwen3.8 27B or Claude Opus 4.7?+
Qwen3.8 27B has the larger sourced maximum output: Qwen3.8 27B supports 131K and Claude Opus 4.7 supports 128K output tokens.
Do Qwen3.8 27B and Claude Opus 4.7 support reasoning and tool use?+
Qwen3.8 27B: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Claude Opus 4.7: 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 4.7?+
Qwen3.8 27B has 3 sourced provider routes; Claude Opus 4.7 has 2, so Qwen3.8 27B has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, Qwen3.8 27B or Claude Opus 4.7?+
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.