Roboflow

Claude Opus 5.5 vs Qwen3.8 Flash

Compare Claude Opus 5.5 and Qwen3.8 Flash side-by-side.

Compare Claude Opus 5.5 vs Qwen3.8 Flash 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 5.5 vs Qwen3.8 Flash on Vision Evals

Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher on 5 of the six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Reasoning, where Claude Opus 5.5 leads 83.0% to 35.1%.

Overall, Claude Opus 5.5 averages 85.5% (#3 of 57) against 68.8% (#29 of 57) for Qwen3.8 Flash.

Qwen3.8 Flash is both cheaper ($0.0004 vs $0.014 per sample) and faster (6.5s vs 12.8s per sample).

Claude Opus 5.5Qwen3.8 Flash

Claude Opus 5.5 vs Qwen3.8 Flash Comparison Table

Evals updated September 22, 2026Pricing updated September 22, 2026

PropertyClaude Opus 5.5Qwen3.8 Flash
OrganizationAnthropicQwen
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateSep 2026Aug 2026
Context Window1.0M1.0M
Parameters125B total, 6B active (+51B N-gram embeddings)
LicenseProprietaryCustom
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.150
Output $/1M$0.470
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemo
Chart Question Answering
ClassificationDemo
Document Question Answering
Image Tagging
Multi-Label Classification
Object DetectionDemo
OCRDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemo
Model Features
Foundation Vision
LLMs with Vision Capabilities
Multimodal Vision
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
85.5%
68.8%
Avg cost / sample$0.014$0.0004
Avg speed / sample12.76s6.48s
By task
Object Detection (low)
74.4%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.9 to 74.8
$0.022
59.8%
±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.5 to 60.8
$0.0006
Object Detection (high)
76.8%
±1.2, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.4 to 77.8
$0.030
67.0%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.3 to 68.5
$0.0010
Counting (low)
80.6%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 82.4
$0.0081
56.3%
±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.0 to 59.5
$0.0002
Counting (high)
82.0%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.7 to 83.8
$0.0098
68.0%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 67.6 to 68.9
$0.0008
Identification (low)
93.8%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 93.8
$0.0058
88.5%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6
$0.0001
Identification (high)
95.8%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 96.9
$0.0067
86.5%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6
$0.0003
OCR (low)
87.8%
±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.0 to 88.2
$0.017
88.0%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.8 to 88.9
$0.0003
OCR (high)
87.2%
±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.5 to 87.8
$0.024
91.3%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.8 to 91.9
$0.0005
Data Extraction (low)
93.5%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 92.8 to 93.8
$0.0066
84.9%
±1.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 83.5 to 86.6
$0.0002
Data Extraction (high)
93.5%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 92.8 to 93.8
$0.0075
84.5%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 83.5 to 85.6
$0.0003
Reasoning (low)
83.0%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.1 to 84.1
$0.0090
35.1%
±3.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 31.1 to 37.8
$0.0002
Reasoning (high)
85.9%
±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.8 to 88.1
$0.011
69.5%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 68.9 to 70.2
$0.0011

Claude Opus 5.5 vs Qwen3.8 Flash: Overview

Claude Opus 5.5

Claude Opus 5.5 is a proprietary multimodal reasoning model from Anthropic and the first entry in the Claude 5.5 family. It accepts interleaved text and image input and returns text, with a one million token context window and up to 128,000 output tokens per response. Adaptive thinking is always enabled on this model and cannot be disabled; thinking depth is instead governed by an effort parameter with five levels, where medium is the default, a change from the high default used by Claude Opus 5 and earlier Opus models. Anthropic reports a knowledge cutoff of June 2026.

On the visual side, Anthropic characterizes Opus 5.5 as its strongest Opus release for vision and computer use, describing improved reading of dense documents, charts, screenshots, and diagrams for document extraction and visual analysis tasks. Published results include 89.0% on Chartography with tools and 81.8% on OSWorld 2.0 under partial credit scoring, alongside 48.7% under strict scoring reported in the system card. The accompanying system card states that Opus 5.5 scored higher than Opus 5 on every evaluation in its capability summary, with the largest gains concentrated in agentic coding, visual reasoning, computer use, and long-horizon knowledge work. The model ships with safety classifiers covering biology and cybersecurity that can route blocked requests to earlier Claude models.

Qwen3.8 Flash

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, Claude Opus 5.5 performed better. It scores higher on 5 of the six vision tasks and averages 85.5% (#3 of 57) against 68.8% (#29 of 57) for Qwen3.8 Flash. 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 5.5 leads with 83.0% against 35.1%. 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 $0.014. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

Qwen3.8 Flash is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 6.5s per inference against 12.8s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.