LLM Comparison

Claude Opus 4.8 vs Qwen3.8 Flash Next: benchmark scores, pricing & comparison.

Side-by-side Claude Opus 4.8 vs Qwen3.8 Flash Next comparison across SWE-bench, GPQA, HLE, Terminal-Bench, coding agent scores, token pricing, context window, and AskClash RWT. Green marks the winner on each benchmark.

Verdict: Claude Opus 4.8 ranks higher (#17 vs #26) and wins 5 of 9 shared benchmarks; Qwen3.8 Flash Next costs less ($0.16/$0.47 vs $5.00/$25.0 per 1M tokens).

Open live leaderboardClaude Opus 4.8 model pageQwen3.8 Flash Next model page
Rank #17 vs #26AskClash overall scores 60.0 vs 57.3.
Pricing $5.00/$25.0 vs $0.16/$0.47Input and output token prices per 1M tokens when published.
Proprietary vs Open WeightAnthropic vs Alibaba.

Claude Opus 4.8 vs Qwen3.8 Flash Next benchmark comparison

Green cells highlight the winning model for each metric. Scores are cached from the AskClash LLM leaderboard snapshot.

MetricClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3.8 Flash Next
Overall Score60.057.3
Leaderboard Rank#17#26
ACB60.166.5
RWT9.0—
Coding Agent Index72.5—
HLE57.935.9
GPQA93.691.7
IFEval62.281.3
SWE-bench88.6—
SWE-Pro69.262.5
SWE-Atlas82.5—
Terminal-Bench21.725.2
DeepSWE59.058.7
GDPval-AA1889.81743.0
OSWorld83.4—
MCP Atlas82.2—
Finance Agent53.9—
CharXiv89.990.6
MMMU-Pro—79.8
ARC-AGI 272.1—
Tau294.4—
Input Price (per 1M tokens)$5.00$0.16
Output Price (per 1M tokens)$25.0$0.47
Context Window1M1M
Benchmarks Published1612

Claude Opus 4.8 vs Qwen3.8 Flash Next head-to-head charts

Claude Opus 4.8 leads 6 and Qwen3.8 Flash Next leads 4 of 10 shared benchmarks. Qwen3.8 Flash Next is cheaper on a defined 1M-input / 200K-output workload. Charts show only benchmarks both models publish.

Claude Opus 4.8Qwen3.8 Flash Next
Overall
60.0Claude Opus 4.8
57.3Qwen3.8 Flash Next
ACB
60.1Claude Opus 4.8
66.5Qwen3.8 Flash Next
HLE
57.9Claude Opus 4.8
35.9Qwen3.8 Flash Next
GPQA
93.6Claude Opus 4.8
91.7Qwen3.8 Flash Next
IFEval
62.2Claude Opus 4.8
81.3Qwen3.8 Flash Next
SWE-Pro
69.2Claude Opus 4.8
62.5Qwen3.8 Flash Next
Terminal-Bench
21.7Claude Opus 4.8
25.2Qwen3.8 Flash Next
DeepSWE
59.0Claude Opus 4.8
58.7Qwen3.8 Flash Next
GDPval-AA
1889.8Claude Opus 4.8
1743.0Qwen3.8 Flash Next
CharXiv
89.9Claude Opus 4.8
90.6Qwen3.8 Flash Next
Claude Opus 4.8
Input$5.00
Output$25.0
Workload$10
Context1M
Qwen3.8 Flash Next
Input$0.16
Output$0.47
Workload$0.25
Context1M

Workload = published cost of 1M input + 200K output tokens. Open the live leaderboard for interactive compare charts.

More Claude Opus 4.8 and Qwen3.8 Flash Next comparisons

Explore how Claude Opus 4.8 and Qwen3.8 Flash Next stack up against other top-ranked LLMs.

Claude Opus 5.5 vs Claude Opus 4.8Claude Opus 5.5 vs Qwen3.8 Flash NextClaude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Opus 4.8Claude Fable 5.1 vs Qwen3.8 Flash NextClaude Sonnet 5.5 vs Claude Opus 4.8Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Qwen3.8 Flash NextClaude Opus 5 vs Claude Opus 4.8Claude Opus 5 vs Qwen3.8 Flash NextClaude Fable 5 vs Claude Opus 4.8Claude Fable 5 vs Qwen3.8 Flash Next

How to read this comparison

Benchmark scores

Higher is better for all benchmark scores (SWE-bench, GPQA, HLE, Terminal-Bench, etc.). Green marks the model with the higher score.

Token pricing

Lower is better for input and output prices. Green marks the cheaper model per 1M tokens.

Coverage matters

Models with fewer disclosed benchmark cells may have inflated percentile scores. Check the benchmark cell count for context.

This comparison page is generated from the AskClash LLM leaderboard cache. Open the live leaderboard for real-time scores and interactive filtering.