Skip to main content
BenchLM

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.8 vs Qwen3 235B 2507

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 1 shared benchmark result across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.

85/100
Margin
51.0pts
← winning
34/100
0 category wins1 category wins

Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.8 #3; Qwen3 235B 2507 unranked

Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.8 and Qwen3 235B 2507 share 1 comparable benchmark result. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 52 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.8; 3 to Qwen3 235B 2507.

Updated July 12, 2026
Shared results
1
Claude Opus 4.8 only
52
Qwen3 235B 2507 only
3
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Pick Claude Opus 4.8 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3 235B 2507 only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 1 shared benchmark result across 1 evidence category; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

Claude Opus 4.8 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 85 to 34. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Claude Opus 4.8 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Qwen3 235B 2507. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Claude Opus 4.8 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Qwen3 235B 2507 is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. Claude Opus 4.8 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 128K for Qwen3 235B 2507.

Category breakdown

Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.

Category scores and score margins for Claude Opus 4.8 and Qwen3 235B 2507
CategoryClaude Opus 4.8ΔQwen3 235B 2507
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.862.7Margin→ 16.3Qwen3 235B 250779.0
AgenticClaude Opus 4.880.3MarginNo overlapQwen3 235B 2507Not measured
CodingClaude Opus 4.876.4MarginNo overlapQwen3 235B 2507Not measured
MathClaude Opus 4.853.9MarginNo overlapQwen3 235B 2507Not measured
MultilingualClaude Opus 4.8Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3 235B 250779.4
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.877.0MarginNo overlapQwen3 235B 2507Not measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Claude Opus 4.8B · Qwen3 235B 2507

  1. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 93.6%B 77.5%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 16.1
    GPQA: Claude Opus 4.8 scored 93.6%; Qwen3 235B 2507 scored 77.5%. Claude Opus 4.8 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3 235B 2507Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.8$5 input / $25 outputQwen3 235B 2507$0 input / $0 outputQwen3 235B 2507 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.8Not availableQwen3 235B 2507Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.8Not availableQwen3 235B 2507Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.81MQwen3 235B 2507128KClaude Opus 4.8 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3 235B 2507Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 74.6%—Not comparable
BrowseCompSource 84.3%—Not comparable
DeepSearchQASource 93.1%—Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 83.4%—Not comparable
Finance Agent v2Source 53.9%—Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 1600—Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource 82.2%—Not comparable
ToolathlonSource 59.9%—Not comparable
Gert LabsSource 72.97%—Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource 47.2%—Not comparable
Tau2-TelecomSource 94.4%—Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 55.0%—Not comparable
ResearchClawBenchSource 21.1%—Not comparable
OSWorld 2.0Source 20.6%—Not comparable
AA BriefcaseSource 1354—Not comparable
AA AutomationBenchSource 48.5%—Not comparable
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource 44.0%—Not comparable
AA Harvey LABSource 7.5%—Not comparable
AA Tau3 BankingSource 27.6%—Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3 235B 2507Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 88.6%—Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 69.2%—Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource 84.4%—Not comparable
SWE MultimodalSource 38.4%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 74.6%—Not comparable
cursorBench31Source 58.4%—Not comparable
cursorBench32Source 62.3%—Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 74.3%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench HardSource 58.3%—Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 53.5%—Not comparable
FrontierCodeSource 46.5%—Not comparable
AA Terminal-Bench 2.1Source 84.6%—Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3 235B 2507Result
AA-LCRSource 67.7%—Not comparable
CritPtSource 20.9%—Not comparable
KnowledgeQwen3 235B 2507 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3 235B 2507Result
GPQASource 93.6%77.5%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
GPQA-DSource 93.6%—Not comparable
HLESource 57.9%—Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource 49.8%—Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 55.7%—Not comparable
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 92.0%—Not comparable
AA-HLESource 45.7%—Not comparable
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 27.4%—Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 46.6%—Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 35.9%—Not comparable
SuperGPQASource —62.6%Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource —83%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3 235B 2507Result
USAMO 2026Source 96.7%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 47.241%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 31.250%—Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3 235B 2507Result
INCLUDESource 87.6%—Not comparable
MMLU-ProXSource —79.4%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3 235B 2507Result
OfficeQA ProSource 66.2%—Not comparable
ScreenSpot ProSource 87.9%—Not comparable
CharXivSource 89.9%—Not comparable
CharXiv w/o toolsSource 80.5%—Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1281—Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3 235B 2507Result
AA-IFBenchSource 62.2%—Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.8 or Qwen3 235B 2507?

Claude Opus 4.8 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 85 to 34. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 93.6% and 77.5%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 4.8 or Qwen3 235B 2507?

Qwen3 235B 2507 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 79 versus 62.7. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Anthropic Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 12, 2026

The AI models change fast. We track them for you.

A weekly brief for engineers and researchers covering new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.

Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.