Which is better: Claude Opus 5 or Qwen3.8 27B?

Verdict: Claude Opus 5 ranks higher (#4 vs #39) and wins 8 of 8 shared benchmarks; Qwen3.8 27B costs less ($0.45/$3.20 vs $5.00/$25.0 per 1M tokens). AskClash compares Claude Opus 5 and Qwen3.8 27B side by side across SWE-bench, GPQA, HLE, Terminal-Bench, coding agent scores, token pricing, AskClash ACB, and context window so you can see which model wins on each benchmark.

How do Claude Opus 5 and Qwen3.8 27B compare on coding benchmarks?

The comparison table shows SWE-bench, SWE-Pro, SWE-Atlas, Terminal-Bench, DeepSWE, and coding agent index scores for both Claude Opus 5 and Qwen3.8 27B when publicly disclosed.

LLM Comparison

Claude Opus 5 vs Qwen3.8 27B: benchmark scores, pricing & comparison.

Side-by-side Claude Opus 5 vs Qwen3.8 27B 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 5 ranks higher (#4 vs #39) and wins 8 of 8 shared benchmarks; Qwen3.8 27B costs less ($0.45/$3.20 vs $5.00/$25.0 per 1M tokens).

Open live leaderboard Claude Opus 5 model page Qwen3.8 27B model page

Rank #4 vs #39AskClash overall scores 75.2 vs 51.4.

Pricing $5.00/$25.0 vs $0.45/$3.20Input and output token prices per 1M tokens when published.

Proprietary vs Open WeightAnthropic vs Alibaba.

Claude Opus 5 vs Qwen3.8 27B benchmark comparison

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

Metric	Claude Opus 5	Qwen3.8 27B
Overall Score	75.2	51.4
Leaderboard Rank	#4	#39
ACB	70.5	56.4
RWT	9.0	—
Coding Agent Index	66.0	—
HLE	64.7	30.8
GPQA	93.2	89.2
IFEval	—	79.5
SWE-bench	96.0	—
SWE-Pro	79.2	61.7
SWE-Atlas	66.4	—
Terminal-Bench	—	73.0
DeepSWE	73.6	42.2
GDPval-AA	1861.0	1408.9
OSWorld	—	84.3
MCP Atlas	85.8	—
Finance Agent	58.6	48.6
CharXiv	—	90.2
MMMU-Pro	84.7	76.3
ARC-AGI 2	90.4	—
Input Price (per 1M tokens)	$5.00	$0.45
Output Price (per 1M tokens)	$25.0	$3.20
Context Window	1M	262K
Benchmarks Published	15	13

Claude Opus 5 vs Qwen3.8 27B head-to-head charts

Claude Opus 5 leads 9 and Qwen3.8 27B leads 0 of 9 shared benchmarks. Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper on a defined 1M-input / 200K-output workload. Charts show only benchmarks both models publish.

Claude Opus 5Qwen3.8 27B

Overall

75.2Claude Opus 5

51.4Qwen3.8 27B

ACB

70.5Claude Opus 5

56.4Qwen3.8 27B

HLE

64.7Claude Opus 5

30.8Qwen3.8 27B

GPQA

93.2Claude Opus 5

89.2Qwen3.8 27B

SWE-Pro

79.2Claude Opus 5

61.7Qwen3.8 27B

DeepSWE

73.6Claude Opus 5

42.2Qwen3.8 27B

GDPval-AA

1861.0Claude Opus 5

1408.9Qwen3.8 27B

Finance Agent

58.6Claude Opus 5

48.6Qwen3.8 27B

MMMU-Pro

84.7Claude Opus 5

76.3Qwen3.8 27B

Claude Opus 5

Input$5.00

Output$25.0

Workload$10

Context1M

Qwen3.8 27B

Input$0.45

Output$3.20

Workload$1.09

Context262K

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

More Claude Opus 5 and Qwen3.8 27B comparisons

Explore how Claude Opus 5 and Qwen3.8 27B stack up against other top-ranked LLMs.

Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Opus 5 Claude Fable 5.1 vs Qwen3.8 27B Claude Opus 5.5 vs Claude Opus 5 Claude Opus 5.5 vs Qwen3.8 27B Claude Fable 5 vs Claude Opus 5 Claude Fable 5 vs Qwen3.8 27B Claude Opus 5 vs GPT-5.6 Sol GPT-5.6 Sol vs Qwen3.8 27B Claude Opus 5 vs Claude Sonnet 5.5 Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Qwen3.8 27B

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.