Claude Opus 4.8 vs Qwen3.8 27B
Compare Claude Opus 4.8 and Qwen3.8 27B side-by-side.
Compare Claude Opus 4.8 vs Qwen3.8 27B live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
These models don't share enough common tasks for a side-by-side demo. See the comparison table below for their capabilities.
Models in this comparison
Claude Opus 4.8 vs Qwen3.8 27B on Vision Evals
Claude Opus 4.8 scores higher on 4 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Reasoning, where Claude Opus 4.8 leads 53.0% to 31.8%.
Overall, Claude Opus 4.8 averages 66.8% (#19 of 30) against 61.2% (#29 of 30) for Qwen3.8 27B.
Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper ($0.0018 vs $0.016 per sample), while Claude Opus 4.8 is faster (5.2s vs 7.3s per sample).
Claude Opus 4.8 vs Qwen3.8 27B Comparison Table
Evals updated August 14, 2026Pricing updated August 15, 2026
| Property | Claude Opus 4.8 | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | Qwen |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | May 2026 | Aug 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 262K |
| Parameters | 27.78B | |
| License | Proprietary | Apache 2.0 |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $5.00 | $0.450 |
| Output $/1M | $25.00 | $3.20 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Classification | Demo | |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| OCR | Demo | |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | |
| Object Detection | Demo | |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 66.8% | 61.2% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.016 | $0.0018 |
| Avg speed / sample | 5.20s | 7.33s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection | 38.6% $0.026 | 54.5% $0.0036 |
| Counting | 52.7% $0.0076 | 41.9% $0.0005 |
| Identification | 75.0% $0.0067 | 78.1% $0.0005 |
| OCR | 93.8% $0.020 | 81.4% $0.0019 |
| Data Extraction | 87.6% $0.0076 | 79.4% $0.0005 |
| Reasoning (low) | 53.0% $0.0078 | 31.8% $0.0005 |
| Reasoning (high) | 52.3% $0.0078 | 62.3% $0.0087 |
Claude Opus 4.8 vs Qwen3.8 27B: Overview
Claude Opus 4.8 is Anthropic's most capable generally available large language model, released on May 28, 2026 as an incremental upgrade to Claude Opus 4.7. The model accepts text and image inputs and produces text outputs, with a 1 million token context window on the Claude API, Amazon Bedrock, and Google Cloud Vertex AI (200k tokens on Microsoft Foundry) and up to 128k max output tokens. It uses adaptive thinking and supports adjustable effort tiers — high by default, with extra and max tiers available for more demanding tasks. A fast mode operates at approximately 2.5x standard speed. The model is described by Anthropic as a hybrid reasoning model designed for advanced coding, agentic workflows, long-context reasoning, and professional knowledge work.
Key behavioral improvements over Opus 4.7 include substantially reduced rates of unreported code flaws, improved honesty in self-assessment, and better tool-calling reliability. On Anthropic's Super-Agent benchmark, Opus 4.8 completes every case end-to-end, and it scores 84% on Online-Mind2Web for computer-use and browser-agent tasks. It achieves 88.6% on SWE-bench Verified and 69.2% on SWE-bench Pro. Alongside the model, Anthropic launched Dynamic Workflows in Claude Code (research preview), which enables Claude to orchestrate hundreds of parallel subagents for codebase-scale tasks such as large migrations. The Messages API was also updated to accept mid-task system messages without breaking prompt caching, improving support for long-running agentic pipelines.
Qwen3.8-27B is a dense vision-language model of roughly 27.78 billion parameters from Alibaba's Qwen team, built on the architectural foundation established by the Qwen3.5 generation. It takes interleaved text, image, and video input through an integrated vision encoder and produces text, covering document and chart understanding, visual question answering, front-end code generation from visual references, and agentic computer-use workflows. The decoder is a hybrid stack of 64 layers that repeats a pattern of three Gated DeltaNet linear-attention blocks, each followed by a feed-forward block, then one grouped-query full-attention block, so only a quarter of the layers maintain a conventional key-value cache. Native context length is 262,144 tokens.
Post-training targets long-horizon agentic work, and the model exposes per-request thinking control that lets callers switch reasoning traces on or off and choose a reasoning effort level. Multi-token prediction weights are trained alongside the main network for speculative decoding. Qwen reports improvements over Qwen3.6-27B on agentic and multimodal evaluations including Terminal-Bench 2.1, OSWorld-Verified, and SWE-bench Multimodal, with additional results on MathVision, CharXiv, and an internal Vision2Web suite.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Claude Opus 4.8 performed better. It scores higher on 4 of the six vision tasks and averages 66.8% (#19 of 30) against 61.2% (#29 of 30) for Qwen3.8 27B. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.
Yes. On the Vision Evals Reasoning benchmark at low effort, Claude Opus 4.8 leads with 53.0% against 31.8%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0018 per sample against $0.016. Claude Opus 4.8 is priced at $5.00 per 1M input tokens and $25.00 per 1M output; Qwen3.8 27B is priced at $0.45 per 1M input tokens and $3.20 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
Claude Opus 4.8 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 5.2s per inference against 7.3s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.