Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.5 vs Qwen3.8 Max

Updated August 3, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Claude Opus 4.5

Anthropic

63.3/100

Supported · Public rank #40

90% interval 50.0–76.7

Qwen3.8 Max

Alibaba

65.4/100

Estimated · Public rank #31

90% interval 55.5–75.3

Qwen3.8 Max has the higher public score estimate, 65.4 versus 63.32, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.

14 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Which one for your work

Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.

Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Qwen3.8 Max
Qwen3.8 Max has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented

Show secondary and unsupported calls

Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. Claude Opus 4.5 does not fit this workload in one request. Claude Opus 4.5 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Qwen3.8 Max has no comparable published API token rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

31 Claude Opus 4.5 only

14 Shared

38 Qwen3.8 Max only

Shared results: 14
Claude Opus 4.5 only: 31
Qwen3.8 Max only: 38
Like-for-like categories: 1 / 8

5 categories use different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.

Multimodal

Like-for-like

Claude Opus 4.5: 69.9
Qwen3.8 Max: 86.3
Weighted basis: 2 vs 2 rows
Reading: Qwen3.8 Max leads

Agentic

Directional only

Claude Opus 4.5: 62.6
Qwen3.8 Max: 86.1
Weighted basis: 2 vs 1 rows
Reading: Directional only

Coding

Directional only

Claude Opus 4.5: 71.7
Qwen3.8 Max: 67.7
Weighted basis: 2 vs 1 rows
Reading: Directional only

Reasoning

Directional only

Claude Opus 4.5: 64.4
Qwen3.8 Max: 78.3
Weighted basis: 1 vs 2 rows
Reading: Directional only

Knowledge

Directional only

Claude Opus 4.5: 58.1
Qwen3.8 Max: 50.2
Weighted basis: 4 vs 2 rows
Reading: Directional only

Instruction following

Directional only

Claude Opus 4.5: 69.5
Qwen3.8 Max: 82.8
Weighted basis: 2 vs 1 rows
Reading: Directional only

Math

Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.5: 57.5
Qwen3.8 Max: Not measured
Weighted basis: 4 vs 0 rows
Reading: Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.5: 85.7
Qwen3.8 Max: Not measured
Weighted basis: 1 vs 0 rows
Reading: Not comparable

Category averages with the server-provided evidence basis for Claude Opus 4.5 and Qwen3.8 Max
Category	Claude Opus 4.5	Qwen3.8 Max	Weighted basis	Reading
Multimodal	69.9	86.3	Like-for-like2 vs 2 rows	Qwen3.8 Max leads
Agentic	62.6	86.1	Directional only2 vs 1 rows	Directional only
Coding	71.7	67.7	Directional only2 vs 1 rows	Directional only
Reasoning	64.4	78.3	Directional only1 vs 2 rows	Directional only
Knowledge	58.1	50.2	Directional only4 vs 2 rows	Directional only
Instruction following	69.5	82.8	Directional only2 vs 1 rows	Directional only
Math	57.5	Not measured	Not comparable4 vs 0 rows	Not comparable
Multilingual	85.7	Not measured	Not comparable1 vs 0 rows	Not comparable

Shape of the matched evidence

Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.

Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.

CharXiv
Multimodal
Claude Opus 4.5: 68.5%Qwen3.8 Max: 93.5%Normalized gap 25.0Claude Opus 4.5 source Qwen3.8 Max source
IFBench
Instruction following
Claude Opus 4.5: 58%Qwen3.8 Max: 82.8%Normalized gap 24.8Claude Opus 4.5 source Qwen3.8 Max source
OSWorld-Verified
Agentic
Claude Opus 4.5: 66.3%Qwen3.8 Max: 86.1%Normalized gap 19.8Claude Opus 4.5 source Qwen3.8 Max source
HLE
Knowledge
Claude Opus 4.5: 30.8%Qwen3.8 Max: 43.6%Normalized gap 12.8Claude Opus 4.5 source Qwen3.8 Max source
MMMU-Pro
Multimodal
Claude Opus 4.5: 70.6%Qwen3.8 Max: 82.3%Normalized gap 11.7Claude Opus 4.5 source Qwen3.8 Max source

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.

Chat turn

1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

Claude Opus 4.5: $0.0175; Fits in one request
Qwen3.8 Max: API rate not published; Fits in one request

Qwen3.8 Max has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Claude Opus 4.5: $0.325; Fits in one request
Qwen3.8 Max: API rate not published; Fits in one request

Qwen3.8 Max has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

Claude Opus 4.5: $1.35; Does not fit in one request; Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Qwen3.8 Max: API rate not published; Fits in one request; Cached-input rate unavailable

Claude Opus 4.5 does not fit this workload in one request. Claude Opus 4.5 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Qwen3.8 Max has no comparable published API token rate.

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

SpecificationClaude Opus 4.5Qwen3.8 Max

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

Claude Opus 4.5

200K

Qwen3.8 Max

Alibaba Cloud Model Studio pricing

API model ID

Claude Opus 4.5

Not sourced

Qwen3.8 Max

qwen3.8-max

Alibaba Cloud Model Studio pricing

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

Claude Opus 4.5

Not published

Qwen3.8 Max

No comparable hosted API rate

Alibaba Cloud Model Studio pricing

Documented inputs

Claude Opus 4.5

Not sourced

Qwen3.8 Max

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Claude Opus 4.5

Not sourced

Qwen3.8 Max

Not sourced

Provider availability

Claude Opus 4.5

Not sourced

Qwen3.8 Max

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Claude Opus 4.5

Non-Reasoning

Qwen3.8 Max

Reasoning

Weight access

Claude Opus 4.5

Proprietary

Qwen3.8 Max

Proprietary

License

Claude Opus 4.5

Proprietary

Qwen3.8 Max

Proprietary

Release date

Claude Opus 4.5

2025-11-01

Qwen3.8 Max

2026-08-03

If you already use one of these models

Deployment change: The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
Quality signal: Qwen3.8 Max has the higher public score estimate, 65.4 versus 63.32, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
Workload cost: A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff: Qwen3.8 Max has the larger documented window (1M).

Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence83 rows

Agentic

Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Opus 4.559.3%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Claude Opus 4.566.3%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max86.1%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max leads this result
OSWorld
Claude Opus 4.566.3%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Claude Opus 4.559.6%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
QwenClawBench
Claude Opus 4.552.3%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
τ³-bench results
Claude Opus 4.570.2%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
VITA-Bench
Claude Opus 4.523.3%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
DeepPlanning
Claude Opus 4.526.4%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
Toolathlon
Claude Opus 4.543.5%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Claude Opus 4.542.3%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
MCP-Tasks
Claude Opus 4.571.8%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
WideResearch
Claude Opus 4.576.4%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max81.9%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max leads this result
CyberGym
Claude Opus 4.550.6%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
Claude Opus 4.564.23%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
JobBench
Claude Opus 4.532.3%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max53.4%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.8 Max86.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
CoWorkBench
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.8 Max74.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
skillsBench
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.8 Max70.2%
Source
Not directly comparable
Agents' Last Exam
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.8 Max52.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
AutomationBench
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.8 Max27.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
Toolathlon-Verified
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.8 Max72.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
HLE w/ tools
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.8 Max56.2%
Source
Not directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.8 Max19.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
WebArena-Verified
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.8 Max66.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
AndroidWorld
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.8 Max85.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
MobileWorld
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.8 Max77.8%
Source
Not directly comparable

Coding

SWE-bench Verified
Claude Opus 4.580.9%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench v6
Claude Opus 4.584.8%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Claude Opus 4.557.1%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max67.7%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max leads this result
SWE Multilingual
Claude Opus 4.577.5%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
NL2Repo
Claude Opus 4.543.2%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max55.9%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.8 Max86.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
deepSwe
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.8 Max56.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
FrontierSWE
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.8 Max73.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
MLS-Bench Lite
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.8 Max41.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
PaperBench
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.8 Max93.0%
Source
Not directly comparable

Reasoning

LongBench v2
Claude Opus 4.564.4%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max66.3%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max leads this result
AI-Needle
Claude Opus 4.574%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
MRCRv2
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.8 Max92.9%
Source
Not directly comparable

Knowledge

GPQA
Claude Opus 4.587%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max92.6%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max leads this result
SuperGPQA
Claude Opus 4.570.6%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro
Claude Opus 4.589.5%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
MMLU-Redux
Claude Opus 4.596.6%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
C-Eval
Claude Opus 4.592.2%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
HLE
Claude Opus 4.530.8%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max43.6%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max leads this result
GPQA-D
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.8 Max92.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.8 Max43.6%
Source
Not directly comparable

Math

AIME26
Claude Opus 4.595.1%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2025
Claude Opus 4.592.9%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
HMMT Nov 2025
Claude Opus 4.593.3%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2026
Claude Opus 4.585.3%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
MMAnswerBench
Claude Opus 4.584.0%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Claude Opus 4.520.690%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
Claude Opus 4.54.167%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable

Multilingual

MMLU-ProX
Claude Opus 4.585.7%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
NOVA-63
Claude Opus 4.556.7%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable

Multimodal

MMMU-Pro
Claude Opus 4.570.6%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max82.3%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max leads this result
MathVision
Claude Opus 4.574.3%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max95.2%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max leads this result
CharXiv
Claude Opus 4.568.5%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max93.5%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max leads this result
VideoMMMU
Claude Opus 4.584.4%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max88.7%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max leads this result
ScreenSpot Pro
Claude Opus 4.545.7%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max84.5%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max leads this result
V*
Claude Opus 4.567.0%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
MathVision w/ Python
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.8 Max97.7%
Source
Not directly comparable
BabyVision
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.8 Max82.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
BabyVision w/ Python
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.8 Max91.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
ZeroBench
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.8 Max24.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
ZeroBench w/ Python
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.8 Max49.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.8 Max80.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
Vision2Web
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.8 Max69.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
CharXiv w/o tools
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.8 Max88.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
OmniDocBench 1.5
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.8 Max92.1%
Source
Not directly comparable
OCRBench V2
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.8 Max74.2%
Source
Not directly comparable
CC-OCR
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.8 Max79.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
RealWorldQA
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.8 Max88.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
ERQA
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.8 Max77.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
SimpleVQA
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.8 Max75.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
PerceptionBench
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.8 Max63.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
Video-MME (with subtitle)
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.8 Max90.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
MMVU
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.8 Max82.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
MLVU (M-Avg)
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.8 Max90.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
LVBench
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.8 Max81.8%
Source
Not directly comparable

Instruction following

IFEval
Claude Opus 4.590.9%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
IFBench
Claude Opus 4.558%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max82.8%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max leads this result

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.5 or Qwen3.8 Max?

Qwen3.8 Max has the higher public score estimate, 65.4 versus 63.32, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.

Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.5 or Qwen3.8 Max?

The current coding averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so BenchLM does not name a winner from them. Read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.5 or Qwen3.8 Max?

The current agentic tasks averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so BenchLM does not name a winner from them. Read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which costs less, Claude Opus 4.5 or Qwen3.8 Max?

Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.

Which has the larger context window, Claude Opus 4.5 or Qwen3.8 Max?

Qwen3.8 Max has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 200K.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated August 3, 2026

Watch Claude Opus 4.5 vs Qwen3.8 Max

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.

Claude Opus 4.5 vs Qwen3.8 Max

Which one for your work

Long documents

Coding work

Agentic work

Chat turn cost

Cache-heavy agent loop cost

Repository review cost

What is actually comparable

Category results, on a stated basis

Multimodal

Agentic

Coding

Reasoning

Knowledge

Instruction following

Math

Multilingual

Shape of the matched evidence

What each workload costs

Chat turn

Repository review

Cache-heavy agent loop

Specification differences

Context window

API model ID

Cached-input rate

Documented inputs

Documented outputs

Provider availability

Reasoning profile

Weight access

License

Release date

Benchmark evidence

Agentic

Coding

Reasoning

Knowledge

Math

Multilingual

Multimodal

Instruction following

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.5 or Qwen3.8 Max?

Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.5 or Qwen3.8 Max?

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.5 or Qwen3.8 Max?

Which costs less, Claude Opus 4.5 or Qwen3.8 Max?

Which has the larger context window, Claude Opus 4.5 or Qwen3.8 Max?

Related comparisons

Watch Claude Opus 4.5 vs Qwen3.8 Max