Claude Opus 4.8 vs Qwen3.8 Flash
Compare Claude Opus 4.8 and Qwen3.8 Flash side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, Classification, OCR, Object Detection, and Open Prompt.
Compare Claude Opus 4.8 vs Qwen3.8 Flash live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
Detect and compare bounding boxes across models on the same image.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Claude Opus 4.8 vs Qwen3.8 Flash on Vision Evals
Claude Opus 4.8 scores higher on 3 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Object Detection, where Qwen3.8 Flash leads 58.5% to 38.6%.
Overall, Claude Opus 4.8 averages 66.8% (#20 of 34) against 70.3% (#16 of 34) for Qwen3.8 Flash.
Qwen3.8 Flash is cheaper ($0.0004 vs $0.016 per sample), while Claude Opus 4.8 is faster (5.2s vs 8.2s per sample).
Claude Opus 4.8 vs Qwen3.8 Flash Comparison Table
Evals updated August 27, 2026Pricing updated August 27, 2026
| Property | Claude Opus 4.8 | Qwen3.8 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | Qwen |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | May 2026 | Aug 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | 125B total, 6B active (+51B N-gram embeddings) | |
| License | Proprietary | Custom |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $5.00 | $0.150 |
| Output $/1M | $25.00 | $0.470 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | 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% | 70.3% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.016 | $0.0004 |
| Avg speed / sample | 5.20s | 8.24s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection | 38.6% $0.026 | 58.5% $0.0007 |
| Counting | 52.7% $0.0076 | 59.5% $0.0002 |
| Identification | 75.0% $0.0067 | 90.6% $0.0001 |
| OCR | 93.8% $0.020 | 88.9% $0.0003 |
| Data Extraction | 87.6% $0.0076 | 86.6% $0.0002 |
| Reasoning (low) | 53.0% $0.0078 | 37.8% $0.0002 |
| Reasoning (high) | 52.3% $0.0078 | 68.9% $0.0011 |
Claude Opus 4.8 vs Qwen3.8 Flash: 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-Flash is a multimodal mixture-of-experts model from the Qwen team at Alibaba, and the production counterpart of the open-weight Qwen3.8-Flash-Next preview that introduces the architecture intended for the Qwen4 family. The main model carries 125 billion parameters alongside a separate 51 billion parameter N-gram embedding table, while activating roughly 6 billion parameters per token. It accepts interleaved image and text input and returns text, handling 262,144 tokens of context natively with extension to 1,000,000 tokens using YaRN. The production configuration runs with the 1M context window by default and adds built-in tool support.
Four architectural changes separate it from earlier Qwen releases: hybrid attention that pairs Gated DeltaNet for history compression with Qwen Sparse Attention, which uses a lightweight indexer to select micro-blocks of context; a Gated Residual scheme; N-gram embeddings; and training with the Muon optimizer, refined around orthogonalization accuracy and the division of parameters between Muon and AdamW. Qwen reports training cost around one ninth that of Qwen3.7-Plus, with QSA attention kernels measured up to 7.6 times faster in prefill and 4.9 times faster in decode at 1M-token context. Reported scores include 58.7 on DeepSWE 1.1, 62.5 on SWE-bench Pro, 84.5 on AndroidWorld and 95.7 on MathVision.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Qwen3.8 Flash performed slightly better overall. The two split the six vision tasks 3 to 3, but Qwen3.8 Flash averages 70.3% (#16 of 34) against 66.8% (#20 of 34) for Claude Opus 4.8. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.
No. On the Vision Evals Object Detection benchmark, Qwen3.8 Flash leads with 58.5% against 38.6%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Qwen3.8 Flash is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0004 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 Flash is priced at $0.15 per 1M input tokens and $0.47 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 8.2s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.
Yes. The comparison demo on this page runs both models on the same image side by side for image captioning and image classification in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.