Skip to main content
BenchLM

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.8 vs Qwen3.5 Plus

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 2 shared benchmark results across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.

85/100
Margin
37.0pts
← winning
48/100
1 category wins0 category wins

Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.8 #3; Qwen3.5 Plus unranked

Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.8 and Qwen3.5 Plus share 2 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 51 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.8; 2 to Qwen3.5 Plus.

Updated July 12, 2026
Shared results
2
Claude Opus 4.8 only
51
Qwen3.5 Plus only
2
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Pick Claude Opus 4.8 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.5 Plus only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 2 shared benchmark results 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 48. 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 mathematics, where it averages 53.9 against 16.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4), 31.250% to 2.083%.

Claude Opus 4.8 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.40 input / $2.40 output per 1M tokens for Qwen3.5 Plus. That is roughly 10.4x on output cost alone.

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 Plus
CategoryClaude Opus 4.8ΔQwen3.5 Plus
MathClaude Opus 4.853.9Margin← 37.6Qwen3.5 Plus16.3
AgenticClaude Opus 4.880.3MarginNo overlapQwen3.5 PlusNot measured
CodingClaude Opus 4.876.4MarginNo overlapQwen3.5 PlusNot measured
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.862.7MarginNo overlapQwen3.5 PlusNot measured
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.877.0MarginNo overlapQwen3.5 PlusNot measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Claude Opus 4.8B · Qwen3.5 Plus

  1. FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 31.250%B 2.083%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 29.2
    FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): Claude Opus 4.8 scored 31.250%; Qwen3.5 Plus scored 2.083%. Claude Opus 4.8 wins this benchmark.

  2. FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 47.241%B 21.034%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 26.2
    FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): Claude Opus 4.8 scored 47.241%; Qwen3.5 Plus scored 21.034%. 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 PlusComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.8$5 input / $25 outputQwen3.5 Plus$0.4 input / $2.4 outputQwen3.5 Plus has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.8Not availableQwen3.5 PlusNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.8Not availableQwen3.5 PlusNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.81MQwen3.5 Plus1MListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3.5 PlusResult
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
JobBenchSource —18.5%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3.5 PlusResult
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
Vibe Code BenchSource —15.74%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3.5 PlusResult
AA-LCRSource 67.7%—Not comparable
CritPtSource 20.9%—Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3.5 PlusResult
GPQASource 93.6%—Not comparable
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
MathClaude Opus 4.8 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3.5 PlusResult
USAMO 2026Source 96.7%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 47.241%21.034%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 31.250%2.083%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Multilingual
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3.5 PlusResult
INCLUDESource 87.6%—Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3.5 PlusResult
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 4.8Qwen3.5 PlusResult
AA-IFBenchSource 62.2%—Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

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

Claude Opus 4.8 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 85 to 48. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4), where the scores are 31.250% and 2.083%.

Which is better for math, Claude Opus 4.8 or Qwen3.5 Plus?

Claude Opus 4.8 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 53.9 versus 16.3. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4) 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.