Skip to main content
BenchLM

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.8 vs Qwen3.5-35B-A3B

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 18 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.

85/100
Margin
32.0pts
← winning
53/100
2 category wins1 category wins

Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.8 #3; Qwen3.5-35B-A3B #32

Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.8 and Qwen3.5-35B-A3B share 18 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 35 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.8; 11 to Qwen3.5-35B-A3B.

Updated July 12, 2026
Shared results
18
Claude Opus 4.8 only
35
Qwen3.5-35B-A3B only
11
Comparable categories
3 / 8

Pick Claude Opus 4.8 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.5-35B-A3B 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 18 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 3 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 53. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Claude Opus 4.8's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 80.3 against 51. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 74.6% to 40.5%. Qwen3.5-35B-A3B does hit back in knowledge, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

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 Qwen3.5-35B-A3B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Claude Opus 4.8 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 262K for Qwen3.5-35B-A3B.

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 Qwen3.5-35B-A3B
CategoryClaude Opus 4.8ΔQwen3.5-35B-A3B
AgenticClaude Opus 4.880.3Margin← 29.3Qwen3.5-35B-A3B51.0
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.862.7Margin→ 19.0Qwen3.5-35B-A3B81.7
CodingClaude Opus 4.876.4Margin← 15.8Qwen3.5-35B-A3B60.6
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.8Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.5-35B-A3B59.0
MathClaude Opus 4.853.9MarginNo overlapQwen3.5-35B-A3BNot measured
MultilingualClaude Opus 4.8Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.5-35B-A3B81.0
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.877.0MarginNo overlapQwen3.5-35B-A3BNot measured
Inst. FollowingClaude Opus 4.8Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.5-35B-A3B91.9

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Claude Opus 4.8B · Qwen3.5-35B-A3B

  1. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 74.6%B 40.5%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 34.1
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Opus 4.8 scored 74.6%; Qwen3.5-35B-A3B scored 40.5%. Claude Opus 4.8 wins this benchmark.

  2. OSWorld-Verified

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 83.4%B 54.5%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 28.9
    OSWorld-Verified: Claude Opus 4.8 scored 83.4%; Qwen3.5-35B-A3B scored 54.5%. Claude Opus 4.8 wins this benchmark.

  3. BrowseComp

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 84.3%B 61%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 23.3
    BrowseComp: Claude Opus 4.8 scored 84.3%; Qwen3.5-35B-A3B scored 61%. Claude Opus 4.8 wins this benchmark.

  4. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 88.6%B 69.2%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 19.4
    SWE-bench Verified: Claude Opus 4.8 scored 88.6%; Qwen3.5-35B-A3B scored 69.2%. Claude Opus 4.8 wins this benchmark.

  5. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 93.6%B 84.2%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 9.4
    GPQA: Claude Opus 4.8 scored 93.6%; Qwen3.5-35B-A3B scored 84.2%. 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 4.8Qwen3.5-35B-A3BComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.8$5 input / $25 outputQwen3.5-35B-A3B$0 input / $0 outputQwen3.5-35B-A3B has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.8Not availableQwen3.5-35B-A3BNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.8Not availableQwen3.5-35B-A3BNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.81MQwen3.5-35B-A3B262KClaude Opus 4.8 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticClaude Opus 4.8 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3.5-35B-A3BResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 74.6%40.5%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
BrowseCompSource 84.3%61%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
DeepSearchQASource 93.1%—Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 83.4%54.5%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
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%28.96%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA Agentic IndexSource 47.2%—Not comparable
Tau2-TelecomSource 94.4%89.2%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
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
CodingClaude Opus 4.8 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3.5-35B-A3BResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 88.6%69.2%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
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%26.5%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-SciCodeSource 53.5%37.7%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
FrontierCodeSource 46.5%—Not comparable
AA Terminal-Bench 2.1Source 84.6%—Not comparable
SWE-RebenchSource —53.7%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3.5-35B-A3BResult
AA-LCRSource 67.7%62.7%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
CritPtSource 20.9%0.9%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
LongBench v2Source —59%Not comparable
KnowledgeQwen3.5-35B-A3B wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3.5-35B-A3BResult
GPQASource 93.6%84.2%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%29.3%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 92.0%84.5%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-HLESource 45.7%19.7%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 27.4%-46.4%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 46.6%20.5%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 35.9%84.0%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
MMLU-ProSource —85.3%Not comparable
SuperGPQASource —63.4%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3.5-35B-A3BResult
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 4.8Qwen3.5-35B-A3BResult
INCLUDESource 87.6%—Not comparable
MMLU-ProXSource —81%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3.5-35B-A3BResult
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
MMMUSource —81.4%Not comparable
MMVUSource —72.3%Not comparable
MathVisionSource —83.9%Not comparable
V*Source —92.7%Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource —72.7%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3.5-35B-A3BResult
AA-IFBenchSource 62.2%72.5%Qwen3.5-35B-A3B leads
IFEvalSource —91.9%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (4)

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.8 or Qwen3.5-35B-A3B?

Claude Opus 4.8 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 85 to 53. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 74.6% and 40.5%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 4.8 or Qwen3.5-35B-A3B?

Qwen3.5-35B-A3B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 81.7 versus 62.7. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.8 or Qwen3.5-35B-A3B?

Claude Opus 4.8 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 76.4 versus 60.6. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench Hard is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.8 or Qwen3.5-35B-A3B?

Claude Opus 4.8 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 80.3 versus 51. Inside this category, Gert Labs 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.