Claude Opus 5 vs Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Wins 3 of 5 areas
Coding · Agents · Reasoning
Wins 1 of 5 areas
Long documents
Claude Opus 5 is the stronger all-rounder.Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is cheaper and better at long documents.
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 thinking30Claude Opus 53 of 4 tests · 1 tie
- CodingWriting and fixing software20Claude Opus 52 of 2 tests
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own21Claude Opus 52 of 3 tests
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts01Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B1 of 1 test
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up11Even1 each
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 5 pulls ahead
- Complex command-line tasks across many fieldsTerminal-Bench 4.0+37.9points ahead
- Answers hard knowledge questions correctlyAA-Omniscience · Accuracy+29.6points ahead
- Common-sense trick questionsSimpleBench+18.1points ahead
Where Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B pulls ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+21.6points ahead
- Customer-service tasks in a simulated bankτ-Bench V3 · Banking+7points ahead
- Reasons across sets of long documentsAA-LCR+1points 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 5
- Terminal-Bench 2.1Claude Opus 5 by 7.189.182+7.1
- SciCodeClaude Opus 5 by 2.356.454.1+2.3
AgentsClaude Opus 5
- Terminal-Bench 4.0Claude Opus 5 by 37.94911.1+37.9
- τ-Bench V3 · BankingQwen3.8 2.4T A95B by 742.149.1+7
- GDPValClaude Opus 5 by 5.661.255.6+5.6
ReasoningClaude Opus 5
- SimpleBenchClaude Opus 5 by 18.180.662.5+18.1
- Humanity's Last ExamClaude Opus 5 by 12.554.942.4+12.5
- CritPtClaude Opus 5 by 9.129.120+9.1
- GPQA Diamondtie93.293.5tie
FactsEven
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyClaude Opus 5 by 29.660.931.3+29.6
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationQwen3.8 2.4T A95B by 21.639.260.8+21.6
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 5 by 32.837.14.3+32.8
- AA IntelligenceClaude Opus 5 by 10.950.839.9+10.9
- Artificial Analysis Coding IndexClaude Opus 5 by 6.17871.9+6.1
- AA Agentic IndexClaude Opus 5 by 5.856.250.4+5.8
Questions people ask
Which is better, Claude Opus 5 or Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B?
Claude Opus 5 wins three of the five areas where both have results: coding, agents and reasoning. Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B wins long documents, and costs 73% less. They are level on facts.
Which is better for coding?
Claude Opus 5. It wins 2 of the 2 coding tests both models report; Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B wins none.
Which is cheaper?
Claude Opus 5 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.