Roboflow

Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Qwen3.8 Flash

Claude Sonnet 5.5 and Qwen3.8 Flash score 77.6% vs 59.7% averaged across five Vision Evals tasks (#14 and #41 of 69 models), so Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads overall.

  • Claude Sonnet 5.5 wins all 5 tasks, with its widest lead on reasoning (76.4% vs 35.1%).
  • Qwen3.8 Flash is under a tenth of the cost: $0.0004 vs $0.0073 overall average cost per sample.
  • Qwen3.8 Flash is faster: 7.3s vs 8.3s per sample.

Compare Claude Sonnet 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.

Detect and compare bounding boxes across models on the same image.

Open Object Detection in the full playground
AnthropicClaude Sonnet 5.5
Run to compare this model.
QwenQwen3.8 Flash
Run to compare this model.

Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Qwen3.8 Flash on Vision Evals

Score by taskClaude Sonnet 5.5Qwen3.8 Flash
Reasoning
76.4
35.1
Counting
79.3
56.3
Object Detection
74.3
59.8
OCR
66.3
58.9
Identification
91.7
88.5

Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.

Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Qwen3.8 Flash Comparison Table

Evals updated November 12, 2026Pricing updated November 13, 2026

PropertyClaude Sonnet 5.5Qwen3.8 Flash
OrganizationAnthropicQwen
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateSep 2026Aug 2026
Context Window1.0M1.0M
ParametersUnknown125B total, 6B active (+51B N-gram embeddings)
LicenseProprietaryCustom
Commercial usecommercial use per vendor termsSee license terms
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$2.00$0.150
Output $/1M$10.00$0.470
Vision Tasks
Both support 10 more tasks
Model Features
Both support 3 more features
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
77.6%
59.7%
Avg cost / sample$0.0073$0.0004
Avg speed / sample8.33s7.34s
By task
Object Detection (low)
74.3%
±0.9, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.5 to 75.3
$0.0098
59.8%
±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.5 to 60.8
$0.0006
Object Detection (high)
76.8%
±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 76.5 to 77.3
$0.014
67.0%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.3 to 68.5
$0.0010
Counting (low)
79.3%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 79.7
$0.0042
56.3%
±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.0 to 59.5
$0.0002
Counting (high)
82.9%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.1 to 83.8
$0.0053
68.0%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 67.6 to 68.9
$0.0008
Identification (low)
91.7%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 93.8
$0.0029
88.5%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 90.6
$0.0001
Identification (high)
90.6%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 90.6
$0.0033
86.5%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6
$0.0003
OCR (low)
66.3%
$0.0075
58.9%
$0.0004
by category
Single value
48.7%
Transcription
76.3%
Structured JSON
83.8%
Text localization
60.6%
Single value
50.9%
Transcription
83.0%
Structured JSON
73.2%
Text localization
29.4%
OCR (high)–
62.9%
$0.0008
by category
Single value
51.3%
Transcription
87.3%
Structured JSON
79.3%
Text localization
37.4%
Reasoning (low)
76.4%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.5 to 76.8
$0.0049
35.1%
±3.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 31.1 to 37.8
$0.0002
Reasoning (high)
83.9%
±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.1 to 85.4
$0.0061
69.5%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 68.9 to 70.2
$0.0011

Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Qwen3.8 Flash: 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.

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 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.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Claude Sonnet 5.5 performed better. It scores higher on all five vision tasks and averages 77.6% (#14 of 69) against 59.7% (#41 of 69) 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 Sonnet 5.5 leads with 76.4% 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 $0.0073. Claude Sonnet 5.5 is priced at $2.00 per 1M input tokens and $10.00 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.

Qwen3.8 Flash is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 7.3s per inference against 8.3s. 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.