The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Claude Opus 4.8 vs Qwen3.8-27B

Claude Opus 4.8 leads the LLM Stats Score 50.8 to 45.1. Qwen3.8-27B is 9.5x cheaper per token.

Anthropic · Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Claude Opus 4.8 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 50.8 to 45.1, ranking #15 overall.

In the 7 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Claude Opus 4.8 wins 4; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.

On price, Qwen3.8-27B is roughly 9.5x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.

Claude Opus 4.8 also accepts a larger context window (1,000,000 input tokens), making it the stronger choice for long documents and large codebases.

Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.

Choose Claude Opus 4.8

  • overall performance matters — it scores 50.8 and ranks #15 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes reasoning and coding — it leads those capability indexes
  • you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 4 of 7 exact shared results
  • you process long inputs — it offers a 1,000,000 token context window

Choose Qwen3.8-27B

  • cost matters — it's about 9.5x cheaper per token
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Aug 2026
  • you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Claude Opus 4.8
Anthropic
Qwen3.8-27B
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
50.8
#15
45.1
#31
Reasoning
50.3
#13
44.7
#32
Coding
41.6
#11
31.6
#41
Agents
35.3
#19
30.9
#33
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
4 of 7
3 of 7
Input price
$5.00 / M
$0.40 / M
Output price
$25.00 / M
$3.00 / M
Context window
1,000,000
262,144

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

4 shared
Index
Claude Opus 4.8
Qwen3.8-27B
Math
39.3#20
31.1#70
Vision
36.4#7
33.1#18
Tool use
30.4#17
23.2#43
Multimodal
36.1#8
37.2#6
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

27 reported for Claude Opus 4.8 · 26 for Qwen3.8-27B

7 shared

Claude Opus 4.8 outperforms in 4 benchmarks (DeepSWE 1.1, GPQA, Humanity's Last Exam, SWE-Bench Pro), while Qwen3.8-27B is better at 3 benchmarks (CharXiv-R, OSWorld-Verified, SWE-Bench Multimodal).

Claude Opus 4.8 has a slight edge in benchmark performance.

Thu Sep 17 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Qwen3.8-27B costs less

For input processing, Claude Opus 4.8 ($5.00/1M tokens) is 12.5x more expensive than Qwen3.8-27B ($0.40/1M tokens).

For output processing, Claude Opus 4.8 ($25.00/1M tokens) is 8.3x more expensive than Qwen3.8-27B ($3.00/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Claude Opus 4.8 is more expensive than Qwen3.8-27B.*

* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens

Lowest available price from all providers
Thu Sep 17 2026 • llm-stats.com
Anthropic
Claude Opus 4.8
Input tokens$5.00
Output tokens$25.00
Best providerAnthropic
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3.8-27B
Input tokens$0.40
Output tokens$3.00
Best providerDeepinfra
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Claude Opus 4.8 accepts 1,000,000 input tokens compared to Qwen3.8-27B's 262,144 tokens. Qwen3.8-27B can generate longer responses up to 262,144 tokens, while Claude Opus 4.8 is limited to 128,000 tokens.

Anthropic
Claude Opus 4.8
Input1,000,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3.8-27B
Input262,144 tokens
Output262,144 tokens
Thu Sep 17 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Both Claude Opus 4.8 and Qwen3.8-27B support multimodal inputs.

They are both capable of processing various types of data, offering versatility in application.

Claude Opus 4.8

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Qwen3.8-27B

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Claude Opus 4.8 is licensed under a proprietary license, while Qwen3.8-27B uses Apache 2.0.

License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.

Claude Opus 4.8

Proprietary

Closed source

Qwen3.8-27B

Apache 2.0

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Claude Opus 4.8 was released on 2026-05-28, while Qwen3.8-27B was released on 2026-08-14.

Qwen3.8-27B is 3 months newer than Claude Opus 4.8.

Claude Opus 4.8

May 28, 2026

3 months ago

Qwen3.8-27B

Aug 14, 2026

1 months ago

2mo newer

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.

Unable to compare the recency of their training data.

No cutoff dates available

Provider Availability

Claude Opus 4.8 is available from Anthropic, DeepInfra, Vertex AI. Qwen3.8-27B is available from DeepInfra, FriendliAI.

Claude Opus 4.8

anthropic logo
Anthropic
Input Price:Input: $5.00/1MOutput Price:Output: $25.00/1M
deepinfra logo
Deepinfra
Input Price:Input: $5.00/1MOutput Price:Output: $25.00/1M
vertex logo
Unknown Organization
Input Price:Input: $5.00/1MOutput Price:Output: $25.00/1M

Qwen3.8-27B

deepinfra logo
Deepinfra
Input Price:Input: $0.40/1MOutput Price:Output: $3.00/1M
friendli logo
FriendliAI
* Prices shown are per million tokens

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against Claude Opus 4.8 and Qwen3.8-27B side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Claude Opus 4.8
✓ Preferred
Qwen3.8-27B
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Claude Opus 4.8 vs Qwen3.8-27B.

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.8 or Qwen3.8-27B?

Claude Opus 4.8 leads the LLM Stats Score 50.8 to 45.1. Claude Opus 4.8 is made by Anthropic and Qwen3.8-27B is made by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their capability indexes, individual benchmarks, pricing, and limits above.

How does Claude Opus 4.8 compare to Qwen3.8-27B in benchmarks?

Claude Opus 4.8 scores GPQA: 93.6%, DeepSearchQA: 93.1%, CharXiv-R: 89.9%, SWE-Bench Verified: 88.6%, ScreenSpot Pro: 87.9%. Qwen3.8-27B scores MathVision: 94.6%, OmniDocBench 1.5: 91.1%, LiveCodeBench v6: 90.3%, CharXiv-R: 90.2%, GPQA: 89.2%.

Is Claude Opus 4.8 cheaper than Qwen3.8-27B?

Qwen3.8-27B is 12.5x cheaper for input tokens. Claude Opus 4.8 costs $5.00/M input and $25.00/M output via anthropic. Qwen3.8-27B costs $0.40/M input and $3.00/M output via deepinfra.

What are the context window sizes for Claude Opus 4.8 and Qwen3.8-27B?

Claude Opus 4.8 supports 1.0M tokens and Qwen3.8-27B supports 262K tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between Claude Opus 4.8 and Qwen3.8-27B?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (50.8 vs 45.1), context window (1.0M vs 262K), input pricing ($5.00 vs $0.40/M), licensing (Proprietary vs Apache 2.0). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Claude Opus 4.8 and Qwen3.8-27B?

Claude Opus 4.8 is developed by Anthropic and Qwen3.8-27B is developed by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team.

Related comparisons