The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Qwen3.8 Flash

Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads the LLM Stats Score 58.3 to 48.3. Qwen3.8 Flash is 17.4x cheaper per token.

Anthropic · Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 58.3 to 48.3, ranking #2 overall.

In the 3 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Claude Sonnet 5.5 wins 3; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.

On price, Qwen3.8 Flash is roughly 17.4x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.

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

Choose Claude Sonnet 5.5

  • overall performance matters — it scores 58.3 and ranks #2 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes reasoning and coding — it leads those capability indexes
  • you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 3 of 3 exact shared results
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Sep 2026

Choose Qwen3.8 Flash

  • cost matters — it's about 17.4x cheaper per token

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Claude Sonnet 5.5
Anthropic
Qwen3.8 Flash
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
58.3
#2
48.3
#29
Reasoning
56.8
#2
48.4
#21
Coding
48.6
#2
34.0
#37
Agents
42.5
#3
33.2
#31
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
3 of 3
0 of 3
Input price
$2.00 / M
$0.15 / M
Output price
$10.00 / M
$0.47 / M
Context window
1,000,000
1,000,000

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

4 shared
Index
Claude Sonnet 5.5
Qwen3.8 Flash
Math
37.6#30
32.5#61
Vision
40.5#3
33.7#18
Tool use
34.3#2
29.0#15
Multimodal
40.1#2
35.3#13
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

47 reported for Claude Sonnet 5.5 · 22 for Qwen3.8 Flash

3 shared

Claude Sonnet 5.5 outperforms in 3 benchmarks (DeepSWE 1.1, SWE-bench Multilingual, SWE-Bench Pro), while Qwen3.8 Flash is better at 0 benchmarks.

Claude Sonnet 5.5 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Thu Oct 08 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Qwen3.8 Flash costs less

For input processing, Claude Sonnet 5.5 ($2.00/1M tokens) is 13.3x more expensive than Qwen3.8 Flash ($0.15/1M tokens).

For output processing, Claude Sonnet 5.5 ($10.00/1M tokens) is 21.3x more expensive than Qwen3.8 Flash ($0.47/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Claude Sonnet 5.5 is more expensive than Qwen3.8 Flash.*

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

Lowest available price from all providers
Thu Oct 08 2026 • llm-stats.com
Anthropic
Claude Sonnet 5.5
Input tokens$2.00
Output tokens$10.00
Best providerAnthropic
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3.8 Flash
Input tokens$0.15
Output tokens$0.47
Best providerNovita
Notice missing or incorrect data?

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Both models have the same input context window of 1,000,000 tokens. Qwen3.8 Flash can generate longer responses up to 131,072 tokens, while Claude Sonnet 5.5 is limited to 128,000 tokens.

Anthropic
Claude Sonnet 5.5
Input1,000,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3.8 Flash
Input1,000,000 tokens
Output131,072 tokens
Thu Oct 08 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Both Claude Sonnet 5.5 and Qwen3.8 Flash support multimodal inputs.

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

Claude Sonnet 5.5

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Qwen3.8 Flash

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Both models are licensed under proprietary licenses.

Both models have usage restrictions defined by their respective organizations.

Claude Sonnet 5.5

Proprietary

Closed source

Qwen3.8 Flash

Proprietary

Closed source

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Claude Sonnet 5.5 was released on 2026-09-28, while Qwen3.8 Flash was released on 2026-08-26.

Claude Sonnet 5.5 is 1 month newer than Qwen3.8 Flash.

Claude Sonnet 5.5

Sep 28, 2026

1 weeks ago

1mo newer
Qwen3.8 Flash

Aug 26, 2026

1 months ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Claude Sonnet 5.5 has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2026-06-01, while Qwen3.8 Flash's cutoff date is not specified.

We can confirm Claude Sonnet 5.5's training data extends to 2026-06-01, but cannot make a direct comparison without Qwen3.8 Flash's cutoff date.

Claude Sonnet 5.5

Jun 2026

Qwen3.8 Flash

—

Provider Availability

Claude Sonnet 5.5 is available from Anthropic. Qwen3.8 Flash is available from Novita.

Claude Sonnet 5.5

anthropic logo
Anthropic
Input Price:Input: $2.00/1MOutput Price:Output: $10.00/1M

Qwen3.8 Flash

novita logo
Novita
Input Price:Input: $0.15/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.47/1M
* Prices shown are per million tokens

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against Claude Sonnet 5.5 and Qwen3.8 Flash side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Claude Sonnet 5.5
✓ Preferred
Qwen3.8 Flash
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Qwen3.8 Flash.

Which is better, Claude Sonnet 5.5 or Qwen3.8 Flash?

Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads the LLM Stats Score 58.3 to 48.3. Claude Sonnet 5.5 is made by Anthropic and Qwen3.8 Flash 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 Sonnet 5.5 compare to Qwen3.8 Flash in benchmarks?

Claude Sonnet 5.5 scores BenchCAD (with Python tool): 96.3%, ArXivMath (with tools): 95.2%, Global-MMLU: 92.1%, MILU: 91.6%, SWE-bench Multilingual: 90.3%. Qwen3.8 Flash scores MathVision: 95.7%, LiveCodeBench v6: 91.9%, GPQA: 91.7%, CharXiv-R: 90.6%, RealWorldQA: 88.5%.

Is Claude Sonnet 5.5 cheaper than Qwen3.8 Flash?

Qwen3.8 Flash is 13.3x cheaper for input tokens. Claude Sonnet 5.5 costs $2.00/M input and $10.00/M output via anthropic. Qwen3.8 Flash costs $0.15/M input and $0.47/M output via novita.

What are the context window sizes for Claude Sonnet 5.5 and Qwen3.8 Flash?

Claude Sonnet 5.5 supports 1.0M tokens and Qwen3.8 Flash supports 1.0M tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between Claude Sonnet 5.5 and Qwen3.8 Flash?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (58.3 vs 48.3), input pricing ($2.00 vs $0.15/M). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Claude Sonnet 5.5 and Qwen3.8 Flash?

Claude Sonnet 5.5 is developed by Anthropic and Qwen3.8 Flash is developed by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team.

Related comparisons