Skip to main content
Radar

Five or fewer confirmed AI changes, with original sources, on mornings when something changed.A free source-linked morning brief.

Start the free Radar Brief
BenchLM
Anthropic logo
Model A
Claude Opus 4.8

Anthropic

76.45/100

Supported · Public rank #8

90% interval 73.8–79.1

Claude Opus 4.8 vs Qwen3.5 397B

Updated August 26, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Alibaba logo
Model B
Qwen3.5 397B

Alibaba

57.67/100

Estimated · Public rank #85

90% interval 46.1–69.2

Decision reading

Claude Opus 4.8 has the higher public score, 76.45 versus 57.67, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.

12 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.

  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Claude Opus 4.8

    Claude Opus 4.8 leads on the same 2 weighted benchmark rows.

    Confidence: limited

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    Claude Opus 4.8

    Claude Opus 4.8 has the larger documented context window.

    Confidence: documented

  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    Qwen3.5 397B

    Qwen3.5 397B has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates

Show secondary and unsupported calls

  • Repository review cost

    50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

    Qwen3.5 397B

    Qwen3.5 397B has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • 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

  • 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. Qwen3.5 397B does not fit this workload in one request. Claude Opus 4.8 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Qwen3.5 397B has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

    Confidence: rate-fallback

What is actually comparable

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

Shared results
12
Claude Opus 4.8 only
21
Qwen3.5 397B only
26
Like-for-like categories
1 / 8

3 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.

Coding

Like-for-like
Claude Opus 4.8
81.1
Qwen3.5 397B
66.5
Weighted basis
2 vs 2 rows
Reading
Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Agentic

Directional only
Claude Opus 4.8
80.3
Qwen3.5 397B
56.5
Weighted basis
3 vs 2 rows
Reading
Directional only

Knowledge

Directional only
Claude Opus 4.8
62.7
Qwen3.5 397B
56.6
Weighted basis
2 vs 4 rows
Reading
Directional only

Multimodal

Directional only
Claude Opus 4.8
77.0
Qwen3.5 397B
79.6
Weighted basis
2 vs 2 rows
Reading
Directional only

Reasoning

Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.8
72.1
Qwen3.5 397B
63.2
Weighted basis
1 vs 1 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.8
53.9
Qwen3.5 397B
90.6
Weighted basis
3 vs 2 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.8
Not measured
Qwen3.5 397B
84.7
Weighted basis
0 vs 1 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.8
Not measured
Qwen3.5 397B
92.6
Weighted basis
0 vs 1 rows
Reading
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.

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 4.8
$0.0175
Fits in one request
Qwen3.5 397B
$0.0024
Fits in one request

Qwen3.5 397B has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Claude Opus 4.8
$0.325
Fits in one request
Qwen3.5 397B
$0.0408
Fits in one request

Qwen3.5 397B has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Cache-heavy agent loop

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

Claude Opus 4.8
$1.35
Fits in one request
Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Qwen3.5 397B
$0.168
Does not fit in one request
Cached input priced at the published list-input rate

Qwen3.5 397B does not fit this workload in one request. Claude Opus 4.8 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Qwen3.5 397B has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

Specification differences

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

Context window

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

Claude Opus 4.8

1M

Anthropic model overview

Qwen3.5 397B

128K

Cached-input rate

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

Claude Opus 4.8

Not published

Qwen3.5 397B

Not published

Reasoning profile

Claude Opus 4.8

Reasoning

Qwen3.5 397B

Non-Reasoning

Weight access

Claude Opus 4.8

Proprietary

Qwen3.5 397B

Open Weight

License

Claude Opus 4.8

Proprietary

Qwen3.5 397B

Open Weight

Release date

Claude Opus 4.8

2026-05-28

Qwen3.5 397B

2026-02-16

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
Claude Opus 4.8 has the higher public score, 76.45 versus 57.67, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.
Workload cost
Repository review: $0.325 vs $0.0408. Cache-heavy agent loop: $1.35 vs $0.168.
Context tradeoff
Claude Opus 4.8 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 evidence59 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 3.0

    Claude Opus 4.821.1%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 397B—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Claude Opus 4.874.6%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 397B52.5%
    Source

    Claude Opus 4.8 leads this result

  • BrowseComp

    Claude Opus 4.884.3%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 397B62%
    Source

    Claude Opus 4.8 leads this result

  • DeepSearchQA

    Claude Opus 4.893.1%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 397B—

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld-Verified

    Claude Opus 4.883.4%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 397B—

    Not directly comparable

  • Finance Agent v2

    Claude Opus 4.853.9%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 397B—

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP Atlas

    Claude Opus 4.882.2%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 397B46.1%
    Source

    Claude Opus 4.8 leads this result

  • Toolathlon

    Claude Opus 4.859.9%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 397B36.3%
    Source

    Claude Opus 4.8 leads this result

  • Gert Labs

    Shared source
    Claude Opus 4.872.97%
    Qwen3.5 397B46.76%

    Claude Opus 4.8 leads this result

  • ResearchClawBench

    Shared source
    Claude Opus 4.821.1%
    Qwen3.5 397B14.2%

    Claude Opus 4.8 leads this result

  • OSWorld 2.0

    Claude Opus 4.820.6%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 397B—

    Not directly comparable

  • Claw-Eval

    Claude Opus 4.8—
    Qwen3.5 397B56.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • QwenClawBench

    Claude Opus 4.8—
    Qwen3.5 397B51.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • τ³-bench results

    Claude Opus 4.8—
    Qwen3.5 397B68.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • VITA-Bench

    Claude Opus 4.8—
    Qwen3.5 397B43.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepPlanning

    Claude Opus 4.8—
    Qwen3.5 397B37.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP-Tasks

    Claude Opus 4.8—
    Qwen3.5 397B74.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • WideResearch

    Claude Opus 4.8—
    Qwen3.5 397B74.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Claude Opus 4.888.6%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 397B76.2%
    Source

    Claude Opus 4.8 leads this result

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Claude Opus 4.869.2%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 397B50.9%
    Source

    Claude Opus 4.8 leads this result

  • SWE Multilingual

    Claude Opus 4.884.4%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 397B—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE Multimodal

    Claude Opus 4.838.4%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 397B—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Claude Opus 4.874.6%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 397B—

    Not directly comparable

  • cursorBench31

    Claude Opus 4.858.4%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 397B—

    Not directly comparable

  • cursorBench32

    Claude Opus 4.862.3%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 397B—

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierCode 1.1 Main

    Claude Opus 4.846.5%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 397B—

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench v6

    Claude Opus 4.8—
    Qwen3.5 397B83.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • ARC-AGI-2

    Claude Opus 4.872.1%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 397B—

    Not directly comparable

  • ARC-AGI-3

    Claude Opus 4.81.5%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 397B—

    Not directly comparable

  • LongBench v2

    Claude Opus 4.8—
    Qwen3.5 397B63.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • AI-Needle

    Claude Opus 4.8—
    Qwen3.5 397B68.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA

    Claude Opus 4.893.6%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 397B88.4%
    Source

    Claude Opus 4.8 leads this result

  • GPQA-D

    Claude Opus 4.893.6%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 397B—

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE

    Claude Opus 4.857.9%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 397B28.7%
    Source

    Claude Opus 4.8 leads this result

  • HLE w/o tools

    Claude Opus 4.849.8%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 397B—

    Not directly comparable

  • SuperGPQA

    Claude Opus 4.8—
    Qwen3.5 397B70.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro

    Claude Opus 4.8—
    Qwen3.5 397B87.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Redux

    Claude Opus 4.8—
    Qwen3.5 397B94.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • C-Eval

    Claude Opus 4.8—
    Qwen3.5 397B93%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • USAMO 2026

    Claude Opus 4.896.7%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 397B—

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Claude Opus 4.847.241%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 397B—

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Claude Opus 4.831.250%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 397B—

    Not directly comparable

  • AIME26

    Claude Opus 4.8—
    Qwen3.5 397B93.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HMMT Feb 2025

    Claude Opus 4.8—
    Qwen3.5 397B94.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HMMT Nov 2025

    Claude Opus 4.8—
    Qwen3.5 397B92.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HMMT Feb 2026

    Claude Opus 4.8—
    Qwen3.5 397B87.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMAnswerBench

    Claude Opus 4.8—
    Qwen3.5 397B80.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multilingual

  • INCLUDE

    Claude Opus 4.887.6%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 397B—

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-ProX

    Claude Opus 4.8—
    Qwen3.5 397B84.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • NOVA-63

    Claude Opus 4.8—
    Qwen3.5 397B59.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • OfficeQA Pro

    Claude Opus 4.866.2%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 397B—

    Not directly comparable

  • ScreenSpot Pro

    Claude Opus 4.887.9%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 397B65.6%
    Source

    Claude Opus 4.8 leads this result

  • CharXiv

    Claude Opus 4.889.9%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 397B80.8%
    Source

    Claude Opus 4.8 leads this result

  • CharXiv w/o tools

    Claude Opus 4.880.5%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 397B—

    Not directly comparable

  • MMMU-Pro

    Claude Opus 4.8—
    Qwen3.5 397B79%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MathVision

    Claude Opus 4.8—
    Qwen3.5 397B88.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • VideoMMMU

    Claude Opus 4.8—
    Qwen3.5 397B84.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • V*

    Claude Opus 4.8—
    Qwen3.5 397B95.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Instruction following

  • IFEval

    Claude Opus 4.8—
    Qwen3.5 397B92.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.8 or Qwen3.5 397B?

Claude Opus 4.8 has the higher public score, 76.45 versus 57.67, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap. That is the clearest overall quality signal in the current public data.

Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.8 or Qwen3.5 397B?

Claude Opus 4.8 leads the like-for-like coding comparison across 2 shared weighted benchmark rows.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.8 or Qwen3.5 397B?

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 4.8 or Qwen3.5 397B?

For the stated presets, chat costs $0.0175 on Claude Opus 4.8 and $0.0024 on Qwen3.5 397B; repository review costs $0.325 and $0.0408; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $1.35 and $0.168. Qwen3.5 397B does not fit this workload in one request. Claude Opus 4.8 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Qwen3.5 397B has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

Which has the larger context window, Claude Opus 4.8 or Qwen3.5 397B?

Claude Opus 4.8 has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 128K.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated August 26, 2026

Watch Claude Opus 4.8 vs Qwen3.5 397B

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

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.