Updated October 10, 2026. Rank says Claude Opus 5 is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.
Both of these models will change. Get the price, version and retirement notices for the pair, each with its source. Follow model changes
Claude Opus 5 has the higher public point estimate, 79.44 versus 64.23. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. 7 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
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.
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Claude Opus 5
Claude Opus 5 has the higher public coding point estimate, 71.1 to 52.4, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Claude Opus 5
Claude Opus 5 has the larger documented context window.
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.
The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.
Like-for-like · BenchAlign v5.8
Claude Opus 5 has the higher coding point estimate. Conditional score ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
2 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
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.
OSWorld 2.0Agentic
Normalized gap 51.2HLEKnowledge
Normalized gap 28.8HLE w/o toolsKnowledge
Normalized gap 20.4SWE-bench ProCoding
Normalized gap 16.7SWE MultilingualCoding
Normalized gap 8.5Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.8 lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.
| Category | Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3.8-Flash-Next | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 71.1Supported · #7/146 | 52.4Supported · #37/146 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 18 vs 5 public rows | Claude Opus 5 leads · intervals overlap |
| Knowledge | 81.7Supported · #7/177 | 59.4Supported · #47/177 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 19 vs 4 public rows | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| Agentic | 77.7Supported · #3/123 | 59.5Estimated · #24/123 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 20 vs 6 public rows | Directional only |
| Multimodal | 92.2#2/54 | 87.7#8/54 | Directional onlyProvisional lane · 1 vs 1 weighted rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | 81.1#10/28 | 80.9Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not ranked | 91.2#22/127 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.8) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
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.
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next has no comparable published API token rate.
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next has no comparable published API token rate.
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next has no comparable published API token rate.
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude Opus 5
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
Claude Opus 5
claude-opus-5
Anthropic model overviewQwen3.8-Flash-Next
Qwen/Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next model cardA missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Claude Opus 5
$0.5 per 1M cached input tokens
Claude API pricingQwen3.8-Flash-Next
No comparable hosted API rate
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next model cardClaude Opus 5
text, image
Anthropic model overviewQwen3.8-Flash-Next
Not sourced
Claude Opus 5
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
Not sourced
Claude Opus 5
Generally Available · Claude API
Anthropic model overviewQwen3.8-Flash-Next
Not sourced
Claude Opus 5
Reasoning
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
Reasoning
Claude Opus 5
Proprietary
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
Open Weight
Claude Opus 5
Proprietary
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
Open Weight
Claude Opus 5
2026-07-24
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
2026-08-26
Claude Opus 5 has the higher public point estimate, 79.44 versus 64.23. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.
Claude Opus 5 has the higher public coding point estimate, 71.1 to 52.4, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Claude Opus 5 scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 77.7 to 59.5. Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic tasks, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for agentic tasks from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.
Claude Opus 5 has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 262K.
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Terminal-Bench 3.0
Not directly comparable
BrowseComp
Not directly comparable
HLE w/ tools
Not directly comparable
DeepSearchQA
Not directly comparable
DRACO
Not directly comparable
BrowseComp (10-agent, prerelease)
Not directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
Claude Opus 5 leads this result
MCP Atlas
Not directly comparable
MCP-Atlas claim coverage
Not directly comparable
LAB all-pass (Anthropic harness)
Not directly comparable
LAB criterion-pass (Anthropic harness)
Not directly comparable
LAB all-pass (Harvey held-out)
Not directly comparable
LAB criterion-pass (Harvey held-out)
Not directly comparable
Toolathlon-Verified
Claude Opus 5 leads this result
Toolathlon Verified Pass@3
Not directly comparable
Toolathlon Verified Pass³
Not directly comparable
Toolathlon Verified avg. turns
Not directly comparable
AutomationBench
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Not directly comparable
ApprenticeBench
Not directly comparable
CoWorkBench
Not directly comparable
JobBench
Not directly comparable
Agents' Last Exam
Not directly comparable
AndroidWorld
Not directly comparable
Bug Hunt Bench
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Verified
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Claude Opus 5 leads this result
SWE Multilingual
Claude Opus 5 leads this result
SWE Multimodal
Not directly comparable
DeepSWE
Claude Opus 5 leads this result
FrontierCode 1.1 Main
Not directly comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 Extended
Not directly comparable
FrontierSWE v2
Not directly comparable
ProgramBench (episode 1)
Not directly comparable
ProgramBench
Not directly comparable
CursorBench 3.2
Not directly comparable
VulcanBench v3
Not directly comparable
VulcanBench CII v1
Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench (Vals)
Not directly comparable
CursorBench 4.0
Not directly comparable
PostTrainBench v1.1
Not directly comparable
NL2Repo
Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench v6
Not directly comparable
Chartography (no tools)
Not directly comparable
Chartography (tools)
Not directly comparable
BenchCAD Vision2Code (no tools)
Not directly comparable
BenchCAD Vision2Code (tools)
Not directly comparable
GDP.pdf (no tools)
Not directly comparable
GDP.pdf (tools)
Not directly comparable
OfficeQA
Not directly comparable
OfficeQA Pro
Not directly comparable
Vision2Web
Not directly comparable
ERQA
Not directly comparable
LVBench
Not directly comparable
RealWorldQA
Not directly comparable
MathVision
Not directly comparable
MathVision w/ Python
Not directly comparable
CharXiv w/o tools
Not directly comparable
CharXiv
Not directly comparable
HLE
Claude Opus 5 leads this result
HLE w/o tools
Claude Opus 5 leads this result
HLE-Verified
Not directly comparable
LABBench2
Not directly comparable
HealthBench (raw)
Not directly comparable
HealthBench (length-adjusted)
Not directly comparable
HealthBench Professional
Not directly comparable
HealthBench Professional (raw)
Not directly comparable
BioMysteryBench (human-solvable)
Not directly comparable
BioMysteryBench (human-difficult)
Not directly comparable
SpatialBench Verified
Not directly comparable
SingleCellBench
Not directly comparable
ProteinGym Hard
Not directly comparable
Protein Design
Not directly comparable
Organic chemistry V2
Not directly comparable
Protocols (troubleshooting)
Not directly comparable
Protocols (understanding)
Not directly comparable
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Not directly comparable
GPQA
Not directly comparable
GPQA-D
Not directly comparable
IMO 2026
Not directly comparable
RiemannBench (no tools)
Not directly comparable
RiemannBench (tools)
Not directly comparable
ArXivMath Jun. 2026 (no tools)
Not directly comparable
ArXivMath Jun. 2026 (tools)
Not directly comparable
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 5,500+ readers.
Last updated October 10, 2026
