Claude Opus 4.8 vs Qwen3.6 27B
Wins 6 of 8 areas
Coding · Agents · Reasoning · Facts · Images and charts · Math
Wins 0 of 8 areas
—
Claude Opus 4.8 is the stronger all-rounder.Qwen3.6 27B is cheaper.
Scores updated · 38 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.
- CodingWriting and fixing software80Claude Opus 4.88 of 8 tests
- MathCompetition and research-level math50Claude Opus 4.85 of 5 tests
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking40Claude Opus 4.84 of 4 tests
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own30Claude Opus 4.83 of 3 tests
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up20Claude Opus 4.82 of 2 tests
- Images and chartsUnderstanding pictures, charts and video10Claude Opus 4.81 of 1 test
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts00Even0 each · 1 tie
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked11Even1 each
Images and charts 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.
Qwen3.6 27B costs 86% less for the same work.
The biggest differences
The tests each model wins by the widest margin, up to three each. Scores are out of 100.
Where Claude Opus 4.8 pulls ahead
- Unpublished advanced math problemsFrontierMath Tiers 1-3 (v2)+44.9points ahead
- Answers hard knowledge questions correctlyAA-Omniscience · Accuracy+29.2points ahead
- Very hard expert questions across many subjectsHumanity's Last Exam+25.6points ahead
Where Qwen3.6 27B pulls ahead
- Follows unfamiliar, precisely checkable instructionsIFBench+5.4points ahead
Every test, side by side
All 38 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
CodingClaude Opus 4.8
- Terminal-Bench 2.1Claude Opus 4.8 by 23.984.660.7+23.9
- Terminal-Bench HardClaude Opus 4.8 by 23.558.334.8+23.5
- SWE-bench ProClaude Opus 4.8 by 15.769.253.5+15.7
- SWE-bench MultilingualClaude Opus 4.8 by 13.184.471.3+13.1
- SciCodeClaude Opus 4.8 by 11.654.442.8+11.6
- SWE-bench VerifiedClaude Opus 4.8 by 11.488.677.2+11.4
- LiveBench · Agentic CodingClaude Opus 4.8 by 11.250.539.3+11.2
- LiveBench · CodingClaude Opus 4.8 by 1081.871.8+10
AgentsClaude Opus 4.8
- GDPValClaude Opus 4.8 by 23.447.824.4+23.4
- Terminal-Bench 4.0Claude Opus 4.8 by 21.721.70+21.7
- τ-Bench V3 · BankingClaude Opus 4.8 by 17.534.216.7+17.5
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.8
- Humanity's Last ExamClaude Opus 4.8 by 25.648.723.1+25.6
- CritPtClaude Opus 4.8 by 19.820.91.1+19.8
- LiveBench · ReasoningClaude Opus 4.8 by 18.989.270.3+18.9
- GPQA DiamondClaude Opus 4.8 by 7.89284.2+7.8
FactsClaude Opus 4.8
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyClaude Opus 4.8 by 29.248.819.6+29.2
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationClaude Opus 4.8 by 1060.750.7+10
Images and chartsClaude Opus 4.8
- CharXiv (RQ)Claude Opus 4.8 by 11.589.978.4+11.5
MathClaude Opus 4.8
- FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 (v2)Claude Opus 4.8 by 44.98035.1+44.9
- LiveBench · MathematicsClaude Opus 4.8 by 14.494.379.9+14.4
- HMMT Feb. 2026Claude Opus 4.8 by 11.295.584.3+11.2
- AIME 2026Claude Opus 4.8 by 5.910094.1+5.9
- IMOAnswerBenchClaude Opus 4.8 by 2.783.580.8+2.7
Following instructionsEven
- LiveBench · Instruction FollowingClaude Opus 4.8 by 18.87253.2+18.8
- IFBenchQwen3.6 27B by 5.462.267.6+5.4
Other results12 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.
- AA-OmniscienceClaude Opus 4.8 by 48.828.8-20+48.8
- DeepSWE 1.1Claude Opus 4.8 by 45.75913.3+45.7
- NL2RepoClaude Opus 4.8 by 33.569.736.2+33.5
- JobBenchClaude Opus 4.8 by 26.648.421.8+26.6
- AA Agentic IndexClaude Opus 4.8 by 22.542.620.1+22.5
- Artificial Analysis Coding IndexClaude Opus 4.8 by 20.674.353.7+20.6
- AA IntelligenceClaude Opus 4.8 by 20.441.821.4+20.4
- livebench_languageClaude Opus 4.8 by 16.479.763.3+16.4
- Terminal-Bench 2.0Claude Opus 4.8 by 15.374.659.3+15.3
- HMMT Nov. 2025Claude Opus 4.8 by 5.896.590.7+5.8
- livebench_data_analysisQwen3.6 27B by 4.46670.4+4.4
- τ²-Bench Telecom (AA run)tie94.494.2tie
Questions people ask
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.8 or Qwen3.6 27B?
Claude Opus 4.8 wins six of the eight areas we test: coding, agents, reasoning, facts, images and charts and math. Qwen3.6 27B wins none, but costs 86% less. They are level on long documents and following instructions.
Which is better for coding?
Claude Opus 4.8. It wins 8 of the 8 coding tests both models report; Qwen3.6 27B wins none.
Which is cheaper?
Claude Opus 4.8 costs $5.00 per million input tokens and $25.00 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 27B costs $0.60 and $3.60. That makes Qwen3.6 27B about 86% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 38 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 26 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 12 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.