Claude Opus 5 vs Qwen3.8 Flash
Compare Claude Opus 5 and Qwen3.8 Flash side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, OCR, Open Prompt, Object Detection, and Classification.
Compare Claude Opus 5 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 5 vs Qwen3.8 Flash on Vision Evals
Claude Opus 5 scores higher on 4 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Reasoning, where Claude Opus 5 leads 71.5% to 37.8%.
Overall, Claude Opus 5 averages 77.1% (#9 of 34) against 70.3% (#16 of 34) for Qwen3.8 Flash.
Qwen3.8 Flash is cheaper ($0.0004 vs $0.017 per sample), while Claude Opus 5 is faster (7.4s vs 8.2s per sample).
Claude Opus 5 vs Qwen3.8 Flash Comparison Table
Evals updated August 27, 2026Pricing updated August 27, 2026
| Property | Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3.8 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | Qwen |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jul 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 | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Image Tagging | ||
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 77.1% | 70.3% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.017 | $0.0004 |
| Avg speed / sample | 7.38s | 8.24s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection | 54.4% $0.027 | 58.5% $0.0007 |
| Counting | 70.3% $0.0096 | 59.5% $0.0002 |
| Identification | 84.4% $0.0072 | 90.6% $0.0001 |
| OCR | 93.2% $0.020 | 88.9% $0.0003 |
| Data Extraction | 88.7% $0.0080 | 86.6% $0.0002 |
| Reasoning (low) | 71.5% $0.010 | 37.8% $0.0002 |
| Reasoning (high) | 74.2% $0.018 | 68.9% $0.0011 |
Claude Opus 5 vs Qwen3.8 Flash: Overview
Claude Opus 5 is a large language model with multimodal vision capabilities developed by Anthropic, released on July 24, 2026 as the fourth model in the Claude 5 family. It sits in the Opus tier of Anthropic's lineup, positioned below the Mythos-class Fable 5 and Mythos 5 models, and is framed by Anthropic as the go-to model for most knowledge work and automation tasks. The model approaches Fable 5's capabilities at roughly half the cost, priced at $5 per million input tokens and $25 per million output tokens. It becomes the default model on Claude Max and the strongest model available on Claude Pro. The model ships with a 1 million token context window and an adjustable "effort" parameter that allows users to trade reasoning depth for speed and token savings. Early enterprise customers reported that Opus 5 achieved comparable performance to Opus 4.8's maximum-reasoning mode while generating significantly fewer tokens on average, and demonstrated higher accuracy on financial modeling tasks with fewer tool calls and less time.
Claude Opus 5 supports multimodal inputs including images and text, and is designed for agentic workflows, coding, scientific research, and complex enterprise tasks. Anthropic reports the model scores 10.2 percentage points higher than Opus 4.8 on an internal chemistry benchmark, making it the most capable generally available model for scientific research in the Claude lineup. Cyber classifiers on Opus 5 are designed to intervene approximately 85 percent less often than those on Fable 5, with fallback to Opus 4.8 when a classifier triggers. The model does not retain user data for 30 days, unlike Fable 5. It is available across Anthropic's platforms including Claude Code and Claude Cowork, as well as cloud partners.
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 performed better. It scores higher on 4 of the six vision tasks and averages 77.1% (#9 of 34) against 70.3% (#16 of 34) 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 leads with 71.5% against 37.8%. 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 $0.017. Claude Opus 5 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 5 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 7.4s 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 OCR in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.