Roboflow

Claude Sonnet 5 vs Qwen3.8 Flash

Compare Claude Sonnet 5 and Qwen3.8 Flash side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Object Detection, Open Prompt, OCR, Classification, and Image Captioning.

Compare Claude Sonnet 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
Run to compare this model.
QwenQwen3.8 Flash
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Claude Sonnet 5 vs Qwen3.8 Flash on Vision Evals

Claude Sonnet 5 scores higher on 3 of the six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Object Detection, where Qwen3.8 Flash leads 58.5% to 36.1%.

Overall, Claude Sonnet 5 averages 66.4% (#22 of 34) against 70.3% (#16 of 34) for Qwen3.8 Flash.

Qwen3.8 Flash is cheaper ($0.0004 vs $0.0064 per sample), while Claude Sonnet 5 is faster (4.8s vs 8.2s per sample).

Claude Sonnet 5Qwen3.8 Flash

Claude Sonnet 5 vs Qwen3.8 Flash Comparison Table

Evals updated August 27, 2026Pricing updated August 27, 2026

PropertyClaude Sonnet 5Qwen3.8 Flash
OrganizationAnthropicQwen
Categoryclosedclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateJun 2026Aug 2026
Context Window1.0M1.0M
Parameters125B total, 6B active (+51B N-gram embeddings)
LicenseProprietaryCustom
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$2.00$0.150
Output $/1M$10.00$0.470
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question Answering
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question Answering
Image Tagging
Multi-Label Classification
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Model Features
Foundation Vision
LLMs with Vision Capabilities
Multimodal Vision
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
66.4%
70.3%
Avg cost / sample$0.0064$0.0004
Avg speed / sample4.84s8.24s
By task
Object Detection
36.1%
$0.011
58.5%
$0.0007
Counting
56.8%
$0.0030
59.5%
$0.0002
Identification
81.3%
$0.0027
90.6%
$0.0001
OCR
91.7%
$0.0078
88.9%
$0.0003
Data Extraction
89.7%
$0.0030
86.6%
$0.0002
Reasoning (low)
43.0%
$0.0032
37.8%
$0.0002
Reasoning (high)
43.0%
$0.0043
68.9%
$0.0011

Claude Sonnet 5 vs Qwen3.8 Flash: Overview

Claude Sonnet 5

Claude Sonnet 5 is a mid-tier large language model from Anthropic, released on June 30, 2026, as the latest model in the Sonnet series and a direct successor to Claude Sonnet 4.6. It is a hybrid reasoning model designed primarily for agentic workflows, software coding, and professional tasks. The model features a 1 million token context window, a 128k maximum output token limit, and runs adaptive thinking by default, giving API users fine-grained control over reasoning effort across five levels (low, medium, high, max, and extra-high). It uses an updated tokenizer shared with Opus 4.7 and later models, which produces approximately 30% more tokens for equivalent text compared to earlier Claude models. On benchmarks, Sonnet 5 scores 63.2% on agentic coding and 81.2% on OSWorld, narrowing the gap with Opus 4.8 while remaining at Sonnet-tier pricing.

The model supports text and image input with text output, and accepts tools including browsers and terminals for autonomous multi-step task execution. Anthropic's safety evaluations report that Sonnet 5 shows a lower rate of undesirable behaviors than Sonnet 4.6 and is generally safer in agentic contexts, with improved resistance to prompt injection and reduced sycophancy. Cybersecurity safeguards equivalent to those on Opus 4.7 and 4.8 are active, though Anthropic notes the model was not deliberately trained on cybersecurity tasks. The model is proprietary and API-only, with no open weights.

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, 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 66.4% (#22 of 34) for Claude Sonnet 5. 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 36.1%. 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 $0.0064. Claude Sonnet 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.

Claude Sonnet 5 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 4.8s 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 object detection and open prompts in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.