Claude Opus 4.8 vs Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Wins 3 of 5 areas
Coding · Reasoning · Facts
Wins 2 of 5 areas
Agents · Long documents
Claude Opus 4.8 is the stronger all-rounder.Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is cheaper and better at agents.
Scores updated · 16 tests both models report · How we compare
Where each one wins
Tests won in each of the five areas where both have results. Each piece is one test, so a longer bar means more evidence; grey means the two scored within a point of each other.
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking21Claude Opus 4.82 of 4 tests · 1 tie
- CodingWriting and fixing software10Claude Opus 4.81 of 2 tests · 1 tie
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up10Claude Opus 4.81 of 2 tests · 1 tie
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own12Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B2 of 3 tests
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts01Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B1 of 1 test
Long documents rests on a single test.
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 2.4T A95B costs 73% less for the same work.
The biggest differences
The three tests each model wins by the widest margin. Scores are out of 100.
Where Claude Opus 4.8 pulls ahead
- Answers hard knowledge questions correctlyAA-Omniscience · Accuracy+17.5points ahead
- Complex command-line tasks across many fieldsTerminal-Bench 4.0+10.6points ahead
- Very hard expert questions across many subjectsHumanity's Last Exam+6.3points ahead
Where Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B pulls ahead
- Customer-service tasks in a simulated bankτ-Bench V3 · Banking+14.9points ahead
- Real work tasks from 44 professionsGDPVal+7.8points ahead
- Reasons across sets of long documentsAA-LCR+2.6points ahead
Every test, side by side
All 16 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 2.684.682+2.6
- SciCodetie54.454.1tie
AgentsQwen3.8 2.4T A95B
- τ-Bench V3 · BankingQwen3.8 2.4T A95B by 14.934.249.1+14.9
- Terminal-Bench 4.0Claude Opus 4.8 by 10.621.711.1+10.6
- GDPValQwen3.8 2.4T A95B by 7.847.855.6+7.8
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.8
- Humanity's Last ExamClaude Opus 4.8 by 6.348.742.4+6.3
- SimpleBenchClaude Opus 4.8 by 2.364.862.5+2.3
- GPQA DiamondQwen3.8 2.4T A95B by 1.59293.5+1.5
- CritPttie20.920tie
FactsClaude Opus 4.8
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyClaude Opus 4.8 by 17.548.831.3+17.5
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationtie60.760.8tie
Long documentsQwen3.8 2.4T A95B
- AA-LCRQwen3.8 2.4T A95B by 2.677.780.3+2.6
Other results4 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 24.528.84.3+24.5
- AA Agentic IndexQwen3.8 2.4T A95B by 7.842.650.4+7.8
- Artificial Analysis Coding IndexClaude Opus 4.8 by 2.474.371.9+2.4
- AA IntelligenceClaude Opus 4.8 by 1.941.839.9+1.9
Questions people ask
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.8 or Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B?
Claude Opus 4.8 wins three of the five areas where both have results: coding, reasoning and facts. Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B wins agents and long documents, and costs 73% less.
Which is better for coding?
Claude Opus 4.8. It wins 1 of the 2 coding tests both models report; Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B wins none, and 1 is a tie.
Which is cheaper?
Claude Opus 4.8 costs $5.00 per million input tokens and $25.00 per million output tokens; Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B costs $2.00 and $6.00. That makes Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B about 73% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 16 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 12 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 4 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.