Model comparison

Claude Sonnet 5 vs Qwen3.8 Max

Updated August 3, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Claude Sonnet 5

Anthropic

64.5/100

Estimated · Public rank #34

90% interval 50.0–79.0

Qwen3.8 Max

Alibaba

65.4/100

Estimated · Public rank #31

90% interval 55.5–75.3

Qwen3.8 Max has the higher public score estimate, 65.4 versus 64.5, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.

7 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.

No workload recommendation clears the current evidence threshold.

Use the matched evidence, workload costs, and sourced specifications below instead of treating a point score as a universal answer.

Show secondary and unsupported calls

Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
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
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.

8 Claude Sonnet 5 only

7 Shared

45 Qwen3.8 Max only

Shared results: 7
Claude Sonnet 5 only: 8
Qwen3.8 Max only: 45
Like-for-like categories: 0 / 8

4 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.

Agentic

Directional only

Claude Sonnet 5: 81.9
Qwen3.8 Max: 86.1
Weighted basis: 3 vs 1 rows
Reading: Directional only

Coding

Directional only

Claude Sonnet 5: 76.7
Qwen3.8 Max: 67.7
Weighted basis: 2 vs 1 rows
Reading: Directional only

Knowledge

Directional only

Claude Sonnet 5: 57.4
Qwen3.8 Max: 50.2
Weighted basis: 1 vs 2 rows
Reading: Directional only

Multimodal

Directional only

Claude Sonnet 5: 88.3
Qwen3.8 Max: 86.3
Weighted basis: 1 vs 2 rows
Reading: Directional only

Reasoning

Not comparable

Claude Sonnet 5: Not measured
Qwen3.8 Max: 78.3
Weighted basis: 0 vs 2 rows
Reading: Not comparable

Math

Not comparable

Claude Sonnet 5: Not measured
Qwen3.8 Max: Not measured
Weighted basis: 0 vs 0 rows
Reading: Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable

Claude Sonnet 5: Not measured
Qwen3.8 Max: Not measured
Weighted basis: 0 vs 0 rows
Reading: Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable

Claude Sonnet 5: Not measured
Qwen3.8 Max: 82.8
Weighted basis: 0 vs 1 rows
Reading: Not comparable

Category averages with the server-provided evidence basis for Claude Sonnet 5 and Qwen3.8 Max
Category	Claude Sonnet 5	Qwen3.8 Max	Weighted basis	Reading
Agentic	81.9	86.1	Directional only3 vs 1 rows	Directional only
Coding	76.7	67.7	Directional only2 vs 1 rows	Directional only
Knowledge	57.4	50.2	Directional only1 vs 2 rows	Directional only
Multimodal	88.3	86.3	Directional only1 vs 2 rows	Directional only
Reasoning	Not measured	78.3	Not comparable0 vs 2 rows	Not comparable
Math	Not measured	Not measured	Not comparable0 vs 0 rows	Not comparable
Multilingual	Not measured	Not measured	Not comparable0 vs 0 rows	Not comparable
Instruction following	Not measured	82.8	Not comparable0 vs 1 rows	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.

HLE
Knowledge
Claude Sonnet 5: 57.4%Qwen3.8 Max: 43.6%Normalized gap 13.8Claude Sonnet 5 source Qwen3.8 Max source
CharXiv
Multimodal
Claude Sonnet 5: 88.3%Qwen3.8 Max: 93.5%Normalized gap 5.2Claude Sonnet 5 source Qwen3.8 Max source
OSWorld-Verified
Agentic
Claude Sonnet 5: 81.2%Qwen3.8 Max: 86.1%Normalized gap 4.9Claude Sonnet 5 source Qwen3.8 Max source
SWE-bench Pro
Coding
Claude Sonnet 5: 63.2%Qwen3.8 Max: 67.7%Normalized gap 4.5Claude Sonnet 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 Sonnet 5: $0.007; 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 Sonnet 5: $0.13; 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 Sonnet 5: $0.18; 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 Sonnet 5Qwen3.8 Max

Context window

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

Claude Sonnet 5

Anthropic model overview

Qwen3.8 Max

Alibaba Cloud Model Studio pricing

API model ID

Claude Sonnet 5

claude-sonnet-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 Sonnet 5

$0.2 per 1M cached input tokens

Claude API pricing

Qwen3.8 Max

No comparable hosted API rate

Alibaba Cloud Model Studio pricing

Documented inputs

Claude Sonnet 5

text, image

Anthropic model overview

Qwen3.8 Max

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Claude Sonnet 5

text

Anthropic model overview

Qwen3.8 Max

Not sourced

Provider availability

Claude Sonnet 5

Generally Available · Claude API

Anthropic model overview

Qwen3.8 Max

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Claude Sonnet 5

Reasoning

Qwen3.8 Max

Reasoning

Weight access

Claude Sonnet 5

Proprietary

Qwen3.8 Max

Proprietary

License

Claude Sonnet 5

Proprietary

Qwen3.8 Max

Proprietary

Release date

Claude Sonnet 5

2026-06-30

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: Qwen3.8 Max has the higher public score estimate, 65.4 versus 64.5, but the 90% score intervals 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 evidence60 rows

Agentic

Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Sonnet 580.4%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
BrowseComp
Claude Sonnet 584.7%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
HLE w/ tools
Claude Sonnet 557.4%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max56.2%
Source
Claude Sonnet 5 leads this result
OSWorld-Verified
Claude Sonnet 581.2%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max86.1%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Claude Sonnet 5—
Qwen3.8 Max86.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
CoWorkBench
Claude Sonnet 5—
Qwen3.8 Max74.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
JobBench
Claude Sonnet 5—
Qwen3.8 Max53.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
skillsBench
Claude Sonnet 5—
Qwen3.8 Max70.2%
Source
Not directly comparable
Agents' Last Exam
Claude Sonnet 5—
Qwen3.8 Max52.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
AutomationBench
Claude Sonnet 5—
Qwen3.8 Max27.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
Toolathlon-Verified
Claude Sonnet 5—
Qwen3.8 Max72.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
WideResearch
Claude Sonnet 5—
Qwen3.8 Max81.9%
Source
Not directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
Claude Sonnet 5—
Qwen3.8 Max19.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
WebArena-Verified
Claude Sonnet 5—
Qwen3.8 Max66.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
AndroidWorld
Claude Sonnet 5—
Qwen3.8 Max85.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
MobileWorld
Claude Sonnet 5—
Qwen3.8 Max77.8%
Source
Not directly comparable

Coding

SWE-bench Verified
Claude Sonnet 585.2%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Claude Sonnet 563.2%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max67.7%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max leads this result
SWE Multilingual
Claude Sonnet 578.3%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
SWE Multimodal
Claude Sonnet 528.1%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Sonnet 580.4%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 Main
Claude Sonnet 542.7%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
cursorBench32
Claude Sonnet 561.5%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max—
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Claude Sonnet 5—
Qwen3.8 Max86.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
deepSwe
Claude Sonnet 5—
Qwen3.8 Max56.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
NL2Repo
Claude Sonnet 5—
Qwen3.8 Max55.9%
Source
Not directly comparable
FrontierSWE
Claude Sonnet 5—
Qwen3.8 Max73.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
MLS-Bench Lite
Claude Sonnet 5—
Qwen3.8 Max41.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
PaperBench
Claude Sonnet 5—
Qwen3.8 Max93.0%
Source
Not directly comparable

Reasoning

MRCRv2
Claude Sonnet 5—
Qwen3.8 Max92.9%
Source
Not directly comparable
LongBench v2
Claude Sonnet 5—
Qwen3.8 Max66.3%
Source
Not directly comparable

Knowledge

HLE
Claude Sonnet 557.4%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max43.6%
Source
Claude Sonnet 5 leads this result
HLE w/o tools
Claude Sonnet 543.2%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max43.6%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max leads this result
GPQA
Claude Sonnet 5—
Qwen3.8 Max92.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
GPQA-D
Claude Sonnet 5—
Qwen3.8 Max92.6%
Source
Not directly comparable

Multimodal

CharXiv
Claude Sonnet 588.3%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max93.5%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max leads this result
CharXiv w/o tools
Claude Sonnet 577%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max88.4%
Source
Qwen3.8 Max leads this result
MMMU-Pro
Claude Sonnet 5—
Qwen3.8 Max82.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
MathVision
Claude Sonnet 5—
Qwen3.8 Max95.2%
Source
Not directly comparable
MathVision w/ Python
Claude Sonnet 5—
Qwen3.8 Max97.7%
Source
Not directly comparable
BabyVision
Claude Sonnet 5—
Qwen3.8 Max82.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
BabyVision w/ Python
Claude Sonnet 5—
Qwen3.8 Max91.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
ZeroBench
Claude Sonnet 5—
Qwen3.8 Max24.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
ZeroBench w/ Python
Claude Sonnet 5—
Qwen3.8 Max49.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)
Claude Sonnet 5—
Qwen3.8 Max80.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
ScreenSpot Pro
Claude Sonnet 5—
Qwen3.8 Max84.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
Vision2Web
Claude Sonnet 5—
Qwen3.8 Max69.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
OmniDocBench 1.5
Claude Sonnet 5—
Qwen3.8 Max92.1%
Source
Not directly comparable
OCRBench V2
Claude Sonnet 5—
Qwen3.8 Max74.2%
Source
Not directly comparable
CC-OCR
Claude Sonnet 5—
Qwen3.8 Max79.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
RealWorldQA
Claude Sonnet 5—
Qwen3.8 Max88.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
ERQA
Claude Sonnet 5—
Qwen3.8 Max77.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
SimpleVQA
Claude Sonnet 5—
Qwen3.8 Max75.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
PerceptionBench
Claude Sonnet 5—
Qwen3.8 Max63.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
Video-MME (with subtitle)
Claude Sonnet 5—
Qwen3.8 Max90.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
VideoMMMU
Claude Sonnet 5—
Qwen3.8 Max88.7%
Source
Not directly comparable
MMVU
Claude Sonnet 5—
Qwen3.8 Max82.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
MLVU (M-Avg)
Claude Sonnet 5—
Qwen3.8 Max90.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
LVBench
Claude Sonnet 5—
Qwen3.8 Max81.8%
Source
Not directly comparable

Instruction following

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

Frequently asked questions

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

Qwen3.8 Max has the higher public score estimate, 65.4 versus 64.5, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.

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

The current coding 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 is better for agentic tasks, Claude Sonnet 5 or Qwen3.8 Max?

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 Sonnet 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 Sonnet 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 August 3, 2026

Watch Claude Sonnet 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 Sonnet 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

Multimodal

Instruction following

Frequently asked questions

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

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

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

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

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

Related comparisons

Watch Claude Sonnet 5 vs Qwen3.8 Max