Claude Opus 4.6 vs Qwen3.8 27B
Wins 2 of 8 areas
Reasoning · Math
Wins 4 of 8 areas
Coding · Images and charts · Long documents · Following instructions
Qwen3.8 27B wins more areas, narrowly.Claude Opus 4.6 is better at reasoning.
Scores updated · 42 tests both models report · How we compare
Where each one wins
Tests won in each of the eight areas we test. Each piece is one test, so a longer bar means more evidence; grey means the two scored within a point of each other.
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked02Qwen3.8 27B2 of 2 tests
- CodingWriting and fixing software34Qwen3.8 27B4 of 7 tests
- Images and chartsUnderstanding pictures, charts and video12Qwen3.8 27B2 of 4 tests · 1 tie
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts01Qwen3.8 27B1 of 1 test
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking50Claude Opus 4.65 of 6 tests · 1 tie
- MathCompetition and research-level math10Claude Opus 4.61 of 1 test
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own11Even1 each
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up11Even1 each
Math and long documents rest on a single test each.
What it costs
Prices per million tokens, roughly 750,000 words. The bars show the cost of a million tokens read plus a million written.
Qwen3.8 27B costs 88% less for the same work.
The biggest differences
The three tests each model wins by the widest margin. Scores are out of 100.
Where Qwen3.8 27B pulls ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+32.5points ahead
- Follows unfamiliar, precisely checkable instructionsIFBench+26.4points ahead
- Reads and reasons about text in imagesOCRBenchv2+15.1points ahead
Where Claude Opus 4.6 pulls ahead
- Answers hard knowledge questions correctlyAA-Omniscience · Accuracy+31.4points ahead
- Abstract visual puzzles that people can solveARC-AGI-2+26.4points ahead
- Real work tasks from 44 professionsGDPVal+9.7points ahead
Every test, side by side
All 42 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
CodingQwen3.8 27B
- LiveBench · Agentic CodingQwen3.8 27B by 12.44961.4+12.4
- SWE-bench ProQwen3.8 27B by 8.353.461.7+8.3
- SciCodeClaude Opus 4.6 by 5.351.946.6+5.3
- LMArena · WebDevQwen3.8 27B by 46 rating points15461592+46 rating
- SWE-bench MultilingualClaude Opus 4.6 by 477.873.8+4
- LiveBench · CodingClaude Opus 4.6 by 2.578.275.7+2.5
- LiveCodeBench v6Qwen3.8 27B by 1.588.890.3+1.5
AgentsEven
- OSWorld-VerifiedQwen3.8 27B by 11.672.784.3+11.6
- GDPValClaude Opus 4.6 by 9.755.946.2+9.7
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.6
- ARC-AGI-2Claude Opus 4.6 by 26.468.842.4+26.4
- LiveBench · ReasoningClaude Opus 4.6 by 8.788.780+8.7
- SimpleBenchClaude Opus 4.6 by 7.467.660.2+7.4
- CritPtClaude Opus 4.6 by 7.212.65.4+7.2
- Humanity's Last ExamClaude Opus 4.6 by 639.933.9+6
- GPQA Diamondtie89.690.5tie
FactsEven
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationQwen3.8 27B by 32.537.269.7+32.5
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyClaude Opus 4.6 by 31.44715.6+31.4
Images and chartsQwen3.8 27B
- OCRBenchv2Qwen3.8 27B by 15.148.463.5+15.1
- CharXiv (RQ)Qwen3.8 27B by 12.877.490.2+12.8
- LMArena · VisionClaude Opus 4.6 by 46 rating points13161270+46 rating
- MMMU-Protie75.476.3tie
Following instructionsQwen3.8 27B
- IFBenchQwen3.8 27B by 26.453.179.5+26.4
- LiveBench · Instruction FollowingQwen3.8 27B by 9.463.372.7+9.4
Other results17 tests, not counted
Tests outside the eight areas. They are not counted above: several are summary scores built from other tests, or the same test under another name.
- BabyVisionQwen3.8 27B by 70.814.885.6+70.8
- MATH-VisionQwen3.8 27B by 29.165.594.6+29.1
- ERQAQwen3.8 27B by 24.740.865.5+24.7
- AA-OmniscienceClaude Opus 4.6 by 23.713.7-10+23.7
- AA Agentic IndexClaude Opus 4.6 by 21.167.646.5+21.1
- Artificial Analysis Coding IndexQwen3.8 27B by 2048.168.1+20
- AndroidWorldQwen3.8 27B by 19.96281.9+19.9
- RealWorldQAQwen3.8 27B by 1273.985.9+12
- SWE-bench MultimodalQwen3.8 27B by 11.527.138.6+11.5
- LVBenchQwen3.8 27B by 9.46372.4+9.4
- livebench_languageClaude Opus 4.6 by 8.983.374.3+8.9
- NL2RepoClaude Opus 4.6 by 7.549.842.3+7.5
- livebench_data_analysisQwen3.8 27B by 6.769.976.6+6.7
- ARC-AGI-1Claude Opus 4.6 by 5.59387.5+5.5
- JobBenchClaude Opus 4.6 by 3.236.633.4+3.2
- OCRBench v2 (Chinese)Claude Opus 4.6 by 2.959.856.9+2.9
- AA IntelligenceQwen3.8 27B by 1.831.933.7+1.8
Questions people ask
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.6 or Qwen3.8 27B?
Qwen3.8 27B wins four of the eight areas we test: coding, images and charts, long documents and following instructions. Claude Opus 4.6 wins reasoning and math. They are level on agents and facts.
Which is better for coding?
Qwen3.8 27B. It wins 4 of the 7 coding tests both models report; Claude Opus 4.6 wins 3.
Which is cheaper?
Claude Opus 4.6 costs $5.00 per million input tokens and $25.00 per million output tokens; Qwen3.8 27B costs $0.50 and $3.00. That makes Qwen3.8 27B about 88% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 42 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 25 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 17 are listed but not counted, because several are summary scores or repeat a test. Each score is the one shown on the model's own page.