Roboflow

Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Qwen3.8 27B

Compare Claude Sonnet 5.5 and Qwen3.8 27B side-by-side.

Compare Claude Sonnet 5.5 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 Sonnet 5.5 vs Qwen3.8 27B on Vision Evals

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

The widest gap is Counting, where Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads 79.3% to 64.9%.

Overall, Claude Sonnet 5.5 averages 83.8% (#7 of 60) against 74.7% (#21 of 60) for Qwen3.8 27B.

Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper ($0.0009 vs $0.0065 per sample), while Claude Sonnet 5.5 is faster (10.8s vs 18.0s per sample).

Claude Sonnet 5.5Qwen3.8 27B

Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Qwen3.8 27B Comparison Table

Evals updated September 28, 2026Pricing updated September 28, 2026

PropertyClaude Sonnet 5.5Qwen3.8 27B
OrganizationAnthropicQwen
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateSep 2026Aug 2026
Context Window1.0M262K
Parameters27.78B
LicenseProprietaryApache 2.0
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.420
Output $/1M$3.00
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
83.8%
74.7%
Quantizationsself-hosted
BF1674.6%FP873.9%AWQ-INT474.7%hardware →
Avg cost / sample$0.0065$0.0009
Avg speed / sample10.78s17.99s
By task
Object Detection (low)
74.3%
±0.9, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.5 to 75.3
$0.0098
65.7%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.6 to 66.5
$0
Object Detection (high)
76.8%
±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 76.5 to 77.3
$0.014
66.1%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.9 to 67.8
$0
Counting (low)
79.3%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 79.7
$0.0042
64.9%
±4.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.8 to 68.9
$0
Counting (high)
82.9%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.1 to 83.8
$0.0053
68.0%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 66.2 to 70.3
$0
Identification (low)
91.7%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 93.8
$0.0029
85.4%
±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 90.6
$0
Identification (high)
90.6%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 90.6
$0.0033
87.5%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6
$0
OCR (low)
90.6%
±0.9, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.0 to 91.7
$0.0079
92.2%
±1.2, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.1 to 93.4
$0
OCR (high)
90.9%
±1.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 89.2 to 92.3
$0.011
91.5%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.1 to 92.9
$0
Data Extraction (low)
90.7%
±1.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 89.7 to 92.8
$0.0033
78.0%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 77.3 to 79.4
$0
Data Extraction (high)
93.1%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 92.8 to 93.8
$0.0036
80.8%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.4 to 81.4
$0
Reasoning (low)
76.4%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.5 to 76.8
$0.0049
62.0%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.3 to 64.2
$0
Reasoning (high)
83.9%
±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.1 to 85.4
$0.0061
66.0%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.6 to 66.9
$0

Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Qwen3.8 27B: Overview

Claude Sonnet 5.5

Claude Sonnet 5.5 is a proprietary multimodal language model from Anthropic and the second release in the Claude 5.5 family, following Claude Opus 5.5. It accepts interleaved text and image input and returns text, operating with a 1M token context window and a maximum output of 128K tokens per request. The model uses adaptive thinking by default, allocating variable reasoning effort per request rather than exposing a manual extended thinking toggle, and its training data cutoff is June 2026. Anthropic positions it as a faster, lower cost complement to Opus 5.5 for well scoped everyday tasks, bug fixing, and producing documents, slides, and spreadsheets.

On visual and agentic evaluations reported at launch, Sonnet 5.5 scores 61.6% on Chartography, a chart recognition test, compared with 15.6% for Claude Sonnet 5, and 80.1% on OSWorld 2.1, a computer use benchmark measuring screenshot driven control of a desktop environment, compared with 57.0% for Sonnet 5. It reports 70.6% on Terminal-Bench 4.0 for agentic coding. Anthropic describes it as the first Sonnet model able to complete Pokemon Red from screenshots alone, and it generates output more than 30% faster than Sonnet 5 while using fewer tokens for equivalent work.

Qwen3.8 27B

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 Sonnet 5.5 performed better. It scores higher on 5 of the six vision tasks and averages 83.8% (#7 of 60) against 74.7% (#21 of 60) 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 Counting benchmark at low effort, Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads with 79.3% against 64.9%. 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 $0.0009 per sample against $0.0065. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

Claude Sonnet 5.5 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 10.8s per inference against 18.0s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.