Which is better: Claude Sonnet 5.5 or Qwen3.8 27B?

Verdict: Claude Sonnet 5.5 ranks higher (#6 vs #39) and wins 7 of 7 shared benchmarks; Qwen3.8 27B costs less ($0.45/$3.20 vs $2.00/$10.0 per 1M tokens). AskClash compares Claude Sonnet 5.5 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 Sonnet 5.5 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 Sonnet 5.5 and Qwen3.8 27B when publicly disclosed.

LLM Comparison

Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Qwen3.8 27B: benchmark scores, pricing & comparison.

Side-by-side Claude Sonnet 5.5 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 Sonnet 5.5 ranks higher (#6 vs #39) and wins 7 of 7 shared benchmarks; Qwen3.8 27B costs less ($0.45/$3.20 vs $2.00/$10.0 per 1M tokens).

Open live leaderboard Claude Sonnet 5.5 model page Qwen3.8 27B model page

Rank #6 vs #39AskClash overall scores 73.7 vs 51.4.

Pricing $2.00/$10.0 vs $0.45/$3.20Input and output token prices per 1M tokens when published.

Proprietary vs Open WeightAnthropic vs Alibaba.

Claude Sonnet 5.5 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 Sonnet 5.5	Qwen3.8 27B
Overall Score	73.7	51.4
Leaderboard Rank	#6	#39
ACB	76.6	56.4
HLE	64.5	30.8
GPQA	—	89.2
IFEval	—	79.5
SWE-Pro	81.3	61.7
Terminal-Bench	83.2	73.0
DeepSWE	71.0	42.2
GDPval-AA	1844.2	1408.9
OSWorld	—	84.3
Finance Agent	58.1	48.6
CharXiv	—	90.2
MMMU-Pro	—	76.3
Input Price (per 1M tokens)	$2.00	$0.45
Output Price (per 1M tokens)	$10.0	$3.20
Context Window	1M	262K
Benchmarks Published	10	13

Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Qwen3.8 27B head-to-head charts

Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads 8 and Qwen3.8 27B leads 0 of 8 shared benchmarks. Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper on a defined 1M-input / 200K-output workload. Charts show only benchmarks both models publish.

Claude Sonnet 5.5Qwen3.8 27B

Overall

73.7Claude Sonnet 5.5

51.4Qwen3.8 27B

ACB

76.6Claude Sonnet 5.5

56.4Qwen3.8 27B

HLE

64.5Claude Sonnet 5.5

30.8Qwen3.8 27B

SWE-Pro

81.3Claude Sonnet 5.5

61.7Qwen3.8 27B

Terminal-Bench

83.2Claude Sonnet 5.5

73.0Qwen3.8 27B

DeepSWE

71.0Claude Sonnet 5.5

42.2Qwen3.8 27B

GDPval-AA

1844.2Claude Sonnet 5.5

1408.9Qwen3.8 27B

Finance Agent

58.1Claude Sonnet 5.5

48.6Qwen3.8 27B

Claude Sonnet 5.5

Input$2.00

Output$10.0

Workload$4.00

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 Sonnet 5.5 and Qwen3.8 27B comparisons

Explore how Claude Sonnet 5.5 and Qwen3.8 27B stack up against other top-ranked LLMs.

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