Claude Opus 5 vs Qwen3.8 Max

Decision reading

Claude Opus 5 has the higher public score, 81.83 versus 71.76, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.

15 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Model A

Claude Opus 5

Anthropic

81.83/100

Supported · Public rank #4

90% interval 76.8–86.9

Model B

Qwen3.8 Max

Alibaba

71.76/100

Supported · Public rank #11

90% interval 68.1–75.4

Updated September 15, 2026. Rank says Claude Opus 5 is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.

Share or export

Share on X LinkedInSocial card CSV JSON

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 5
Claude Opus 5 leads on the public coding lane, 75.7 to 60.8, with Supported evidence for both models, although the 90% intervals overlap.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Claude Opus 5
Claude Opus 5 leads on the public agentic lane, 78.1 to 67.3, with Supported evidence for both models, although the 90% intervals overlap.
Confidence: limited

Show secondary and unsupported calls

Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
No clear pick
The documented context windows are equal.
Confidence: documented
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates

What is actually comparable

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

60 Claude Opus 5 only

15 Shared

45 Qwen3.8 Max only

Shared results: 15
Claude Opus 5 only: 60
Qwen3.8 Max only: 45
Like-for-like categories: 3 / 8

1 category rests on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign 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.

Agentic

Like-for-like

Claude Opus 5: 78.1; Supported · #2/153
Qwen3.8 Max: 67.3; Supported · #9/153
Basis: BenchAlign lane · 20 vs 15 public rows
Reading: Claude Opus 5 leads · intervals overlap

Coding

Like-for-like

Claude Opus 5: 75.7; Supported · #3/152
Qwen3.8 Max: 60.8; Supported · #20/152
Basis: BenchAlign lane · 17 vs 12 public rows
Reading: Claude Opus 5 leads · intervals overlap

Knowledge

Like-for-like

Claude Opus 5: 82.2; Supported · #3/183
Qwen3.8 Max: 68.8; Supported · #17/183
Basis: BenchAlign lane · 19 vs 6 public rows
Reading: Claude Opus 5 leads · intervals overlap

Multimodal

Directional only

Claude Opus 5: 88.7; #2/48
Qwen3.8 Max: 87.4; #5/48
Basis: Provisional lane · 1 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading: Directional only

Reasoning

Not comparable

Claude Opus 5: 75.7; #11/20
Qwen3.8 Max: 86.5; Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Basis: Provisional lane · 2 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Math

Not comparable

Claude Opus 5: Not ranked
Qwen3.8 Max: Not ranked
Basis: Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable

Claude Opus 5: Not ranked
Qwen3.8 Max: Not ranked
Basis: Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable

Claude Opus 5: Not ranked
Qwen3.8 Max: 90.7; #18/123
Basis: Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Category scores with the server-provided evidence basis for Claude Opus 5 and Qwen3.8 Max
Category	Claude Opus 5	Qwen3.8 Max	Basis	Reading
Agentic	78.1Supported · #2/153	67.3Supported · #9/153	Like-for-likeBenchAlign lane · 20 vs 15 public rows	Claude Opus 5 leads · intervals overlap
Coding	75.7Supported · #3/152	60.8Supported · #20/152	Like-for-likeBenchAlign lane · 17 vs 12 public rows	Claude Opus 5 leads · intervals overlap
Knowledge	82.2Supported · #3/183	68.8Supported · #17/183	Like-for-likeBenchAlign lane · 19 vs 6 public rows	Claude Opus 5 leads · intervals overlap
Multimodal	88.7#2/48	87.4#5/48	Directional onlyProvisional lane · 1 vs 2 weighted rows	Directional only
Reasoning	75.7#11/20	86.5Unranked · 2 rankable rows	Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 2 weighted rows	Not comparable
Math	Not ranked	Not ranked	Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 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	90.7#18/123	Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows	Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

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.

OSWorld 2.0
Agentic
Claude Opus 5: 70.6%Qwen3.8 Max: 19.4%Normalized gap 51.2Claude Opus 5 source Qwen3.8 Max source
HLE
Knowledge
Claude Opus 5: 64.7%Qwen3.8 Max: 43.6%Normalized gap 21.1Claude Opus 5 source Qwen3.8 Max source
HLE w/o tools
Knowledge
Claude Opus 5: 56.3%Qwen3.8 Max: 43.6%Normalized gap 12.7Claude Opus 5 source Qwen3.8 Max source
SWE-bench Pro
Coding
Claude Opus 5: 79.2%Qwen3.8 Max: 67.7%Normalized gap 11.5Claude Opus 5 source Qwen3.8 Max source
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Knowledge
Claude Opus 5: 91.6%Qwen3.8 Max: 88.6%Normalized gap 3.0Claude Opus 5 source Qwen3.8 Max source

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 5: $0.0175; Fits in one request
Qwen3.8 Max: API rate not published; Fits in one request

Qwen3.8 Max has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Claude Opus 5: $0.325; Fits in one request
Qwen3.8 Max: API rate not published; Fits in one request

Qwen3.8 Max has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

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

Claude Opus 5: $0.45; Fits in one request
Qwen3.8 Max: API rate not published; Fits in one request; Cached-input rate unavailable

Qwen3.8 Max has no comparable published API token rate.

Specification differences

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

SpecificationClaude Opus 5Qwen3.8 Max

Context window

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

Claude Opus 5

Anthropic model overview

Qwen3.8 Max

Alibaba Cloud Model Studio pricing

API model ID

Claude Opus 5

claude-opus-5

Anthropic model overview

Qwen3.8 Max

qwen3.8-max

Alibaba Cloud Model Studio pricing

Cached-input rate

A 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 pricing

Qwen3.8 Max

No comparable hosted API rate

Alibaba Cloud Model Studio pricing

Documented inputs

Claude Opus 5

text, image

Anthropic model overview

Qwen3.8 Max

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Claude Opus 5

text

Anthropic model overview

Qwen3.8 Max

Not sourced

Provider availability

Claude Opus 5

Generally Available · Claude API

Anthropic model overview

Qwen3.8 Max

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Claude Opus 5

Reasoning

Qwen3.8 Max

Reasoning

Weight access

Claude Opus 5

Proprietary

Qwen3.8 Max

Open Weight

License

Claude Opus 5

Proprietary

Qwen3.8 Max

Open Weight

Release date

Claude Opus 5

2026-07-24

Qwen3.8 Max

2026-08-03

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 5 has the higher public score, 81.83 versus 71.76, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.
Workload cost: A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff: Both models list 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 evidence120 rows

Agentic

Terminal-Bench 3.0
Claude Opus 542.7%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
BrowseComp
Claude Opus 590.8%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
HLE w/ tools
Claude Opus 564.7%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max56.2%
Source
Claude Opus 5 leads this result
DeepSearchQA
Claude Opus 595.0%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
DRACO
Claude Opus 588.6%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
BrowseComp (10-agent, prerelease)
Claude Opus 593.6%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
Claude Opus 570.6%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max19.4%
Source
Claude Opus 5 leads this result
MCP Atlas
Claude Opus 585.8%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
MCP-Atlas claim coverage
Claude Opus 589.1%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
LAB all-pass (Anthropic harness)
Claude Opus 523.58%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
LAB criterion-pass (Anthropic harness)
Claude Opus 593.74%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
LAB all-pass (Harvey held-out)
Claude Opus 511.7%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
LAB criterion-pass (Harvey held-out)
Claude Opus 594.1%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
Toolathlon-Verified
Claude Opus 580.6%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max72.5%
Source
Claude Opus 5 leads this result
Toolathlon Verified Pass@3
Claude Opus 587.0%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
Toolathlon Verified Pass³
Claude Opus 573.1%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
Toolathlon Verified avg. turns
Claude Opus 523.5 turns
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
AutomationBench
Claude Opus 526.0%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max27.3%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Claude Opus 584.6%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max67.4%
Source
Claude Opus 5 leads this result
ApprenticeBench
Claude Opus 536%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.8 Max86.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
CoWorkBench
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.8 Max74.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
JobBench
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.8 Max53.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
skillsBench
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.8 Max70.2%
Source
Not directly comparable
Agents' Last Exam
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.8 Max52.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
WideResearch
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.8 Max81.9%
Source
Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.8 Max86.1%
Source
Not directly comparable
WebArena-Verified
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.8 Max66.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
AndroidWorld
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.8 Max85.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
MobileWorld
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.8 Max77.8%
Source
Not directly comparable

Coding

Bug Hunt Bench
Claude Opus 527 fixes
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Verified
Claude Opus 596%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Claude Opus 579.2%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max67.7%
Source
Claude Opus 5 leads this result
SWE Multilingual
Claude Opus 589.5%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
SWE Multimodal
Claude Opus 559.4%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
DeepSWE
Claude Opus 568.8%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max56.6%
Source
Claude Opus 5 leads this result
FrontierCode 1.1 Main
Claude Opus 553.4%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 Extended
Claude Opus 563.6%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
FrontierSWE v2
Shared source
Claude Opus 552.0%
Qwen3.8 Max15.8%
Claude Opus 5 leads this result
ProgramBench (episode 1)
Claude Opus 583.0%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
ProgramBench
Claude Opus 593.0%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
cursorBench32
Claude Opus 570.0%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
VulcanBench v3
Claude Opus 587.0%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max81.2%
Source
Claude Opus 5 leads this result
VulcanBench CII v1
Claude Opus 596.4%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Claude Opus 589.0%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max87.9%
Source
Claude Opus 5 leads this result
SWE-bench (Vals)
Claude Opus 597.0%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max85.6%
Source
Claude Opus 5 leads this result
cursorBench40
Claude Opus 546.6%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.8 Max86.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
NL2Repo
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.8 Max55.9%
Source
Not directly comparable
FrontierSWE
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.8 Max73.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
MLS-Bench Lite
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.8 Max41.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
PaperBench
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.8 Max93.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
OpenHarmony Bench
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.8 Max60.8%
Source
Not directly comparable

Reasoning

ARC-AGI-1
Claude Opus 597.50%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
ARC-AGI-2
Claude Opus 590.4%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
ARC-AGI-3
Claude Opus 530.2%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
MRCRv2
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.8 Max92.9%
Source
Not directly comparable
LongBench v2
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.8 Max66.3%
Source
Not directly comparable

Knowledge

HLE
Claude Opus 564.7%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max43.6%
Source
Claude Opus 5 leads this result
HLE w/o tools
Claude Opus 556.3%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max43.6%
Source
Claude Opus 5 leads this result
HLE-Verified
Claude Opus 554.4%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
LABBench2
Claude Opus 584.2%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
HealthBench (raw)
Claude Opus 567.1%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
HealthBench (length-adjusted)
Claude Opus 557.8%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
HealthBench Professional
Claude Opus 559.8%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
HealthBench Professional (raw)
Claude Opus 573.4%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
BioMysteryBench (human-solvable)
Claude Opus 590.1%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
BioMysteryBench (human-difficult)
Claude Opus 549.4%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
SpatialBench Verified
Claude Opus 572.5%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
SingleCellBench
Claude Opus 560.6%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
ProteinGym Hard
Claude Opus 547.7%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
Protein Design
Claude Opus 542.5%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
Organic chemistry V2
Claude Opus 561.6%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
Protocols (troubleshooting)
Claude Opus 561.1%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
Protocols (understanding)
Claude Opus 578.4%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
Claude Opus 593.4%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max93.7%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max leads this result
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Claude Opus 591.6%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max88.6%
Source
Claude Opus 5 leads this result
GPQA
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.8 Max92.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
GPQA-D
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.8 Max92.6%
Source
Not directly comparable

Math

IMO 2026
Claude Opus 542/42
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
RiemannBench (no tools)
Claude Opus 560.0%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
RiemannBench (tools)
Claude Opus 579.0%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
ArXivMath Jun. 2026 (no tools)
Claude Opus 590.8%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
ArXivMath Jun. 2026 (tools)
Claude Opus 591.3%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable

Multilingual

GMMLU
Claude Opus 592.5%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
MILU
Claude Opus 592.1%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
INCLUDE
Claude Opus 589.8%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable

Multimodal

Chartography (no tools)
Claude Opus 529.6%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
Chartography (tools)
Claude Opus 583.0%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
BenchCAD Vision2Code (no tools)
Claude Opus 50.366
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
BenchCAD Vision2Code (tools)
Claude Opus 50.821
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
GDP.pdf (no tools)
Claude Opus 583.4%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
GDP.pdf (tools)
Claude Opus 585.5%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
OfficeQA
Claude Opus 578.1%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
OfficeQA Pro
Claude Opus 566.9%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
MMMU-Pro
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.8 Max82.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
MathVision
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.8 Max95.2%
Source
Not directly comparable
MathVision w/ Python
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.8 Max97.7%
Source
Not directly comparable
BabyVision
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.8 Max82.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
BabyVision w/ Python
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.8 Max91.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
ZeroBench
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.8 Max24.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
ZeroBench w/ Python
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.8 Max49.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.8 Max80.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
ScreenSpot Pro
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.8 Max84.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
Vision2Web
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.8 Max69.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
CharXiv w/o tools
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.8 Max88.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
CharXiv
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.8 Max93.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
OmniDocBench 1.5
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.8 Max92.1%
Source
Not directly comparable
OCRBench V2
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.8 Max74.2%
Source
Not directly comparable
CC-OCR
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.8 Max79.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
RealWorldQA
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.8 Max88.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
ERQA
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.8 Max77.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
SimpleVQA
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.8 Max75.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
PerceptionBench
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.8 Max63.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
Video-MME (with subtitle)
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.8 Max90.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
VideoMMMU
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.8 Max88.7%
Source
Not directly comparable
MMVU
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.8 Max82.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
MLVU (M-Avg)
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.8 Max90.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
LVBench
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.8 Max81.8%
Source
Not directly comparable

Instruction following

IFBench
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.8 Max82.8%
Source
Not directly comparable

Questions

Which is better, Claude Opus 5 or Qwen3.8 Max?

Claude Opus 5 has the higher public score, 81.83 versus 71.76, 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 5 or Qwen3.8 Max?

Claude Opus 5 leads the public coding lane, 75.7 to 60.8, with Supported evidence for both models, although the 90% intervals overlap.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 5 or Qwen3.8 Max?

Claude Opus 5 leads the public agentic tasks lane, 78.1 to 67.3, with Supported evidence for both models, although the 90% intervals overlap.

Which costs less, Claude Opus 5 or Qwen3.8 Max?

Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.

Which has the larger context window, Claude Opus 5 or Qwen3.8 Max?

Both models list the same context window, 1M.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated September 15, 2026

Watch Claude Opus 5 vs Qwen3.8 Max

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

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.

Claude Opus 5 vs Qwen3.8 Max

Which one for your work

Coding work

Agentic work

Long documents

Chat turn cost

Cache-heavy agent loop cost

Repository review cost

What is actually comparable

Category results, on a stated basis

Agentic

Coding

Knowledge

Multimodal

Reasoning

Math

Multilingual

Instruction following

Shape of the matched evidence

What each workload costs

Chat turn

Repository review

Cache-heavy agent loop

Specification differences

Context window

API model ID

Cached-input rate

Documented inputs

Documented outputs

Provider availability

Reasoning profile

Weight access

License

Release date

Benchmark evidence

Agentic

Coding

Reasoning

Knowledge

Math

Multilingual

Multimodal

Instruction following

Questions

Which is better, Claude Opus 5 or Qwen3.8 Max?

Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 5 or Qwen3.8 Max?

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 5 or Qwen3.8 Max?

Which costs less, Claude Opus 5 or Qwen3.8 Max?

Which has the larger context window, Claude Opus 5 or Qwen3.8 Max?

Related comparisons

Watch Claude Opus 5 vs Qwen3.8 Max