New Sign up free, 10 calls on us. Up to $1, no card needed.

Claude Opus 5.5 vs Qwen3.8 Flash

vs

Which one, when

Both models take 1M-token context and text plus image input, so the split is cost and control: claude-opus-5-5 costs about 27x more on input ($4 vs $0.15) and roughly 43x more on output ($20 vs $0.47), with thinking always on and no way to disable it. Pick claude-opus-5-5 when you want that always-on reasoning for hard code and tool-use work and the token bill is secondary. Pick qwen3.8-flash for high-volume or latency-sensitive traffic, when you need to turn thinking off per request, or when inputs include video, which Opus does not accept.

Benchmarks

Above averageNo peer higherClaude Opus 5.59 / 97 / 9Qwen3.8 Flash12 / 163 / 16
Claude Opus 5.5 Qwen3.8 Flash other models measured peer average no peer scored higher
SWE-Bench Pro
N/A
62.5%
OSWorld 2.0 partial
no peer scored higher 81.8%
52.3%
JobBench
N/A
55.7%
GPQA Diamond
N/A
91.7%
ERQA
N/A
no peer scored higher 72.3%
AutomationBench
40%
N/A
LVBench
N/A
76.6%

Vendor-published: Alibaba (Qwen) Anthropic ByteDance DeepSeek Google MiniMax Moonshot OpenAI Tencent Z.ai

Pricing

Claude Opus 5.5 Qwen3.8 Flash Δ
Input / 1M tokens $4 $0.15 27×
Output / 1M tokens $20 $0.47 43×
Cache read / 1M tokens $0.2 $0.016 13×
Cache write 1.25x (5m) / 2x (1h) 1.25x -

Rates from the live catalog at build time; each model page carries the current card.

Where they sit - input price per 1M tokens across all 74 chat models on this billing unit (log scale)

$0.05 · Qwen3 VL Flash $30 · GPT-5.4 Pro

Capabilities

Claude Opus 5.5 Qwen3.8 Flash
Tool use yes yes
Thinking control always on configurable
Structured output yes yes
Prompt caching explicit (you mark the prefix) implicit + explicit
Cache lifetime 5m default, 1h option explicit: 5m, reset on hit
Minimum cached prefix 1024 tokens 1024 tokens

Specs

Claude Opus 5.5 Qwen3.8 Flash
Input modalities text image text image video
Output modalities text text
Released 2026-09-22 2026-08-27
Knowledge cutoff 2026-06 -
Context window 1M 1M
Max output 128K 131K
Thinking parameter output_config.effort
  • enable_thinking
  • thinking_budget
  • preserve_thinking
Accepted values
output_config.effort
  • low
  • medium
  • high
  • xhigh
  • max
enable_thinking
  • true
  • false
thinking_budget
  • in tokens
preserve_thinking
  • true
  • false
Default medium

on

qwen3.8-flash is hybrid thinking with thinking enabled by default, thinking_budget defaults to the 262,144-token chain maximum, and preserve_thinking is off

Specs are transcribed from each vendor’s documentation; a row a vendor does not publish is left out rather than inferred. Full sources: Claude Opus 5.5 · Qwen3.8 Flash

One prompt, both models - measured through the gateway

PROMPT Explain to a CFO, in exactly three sentences, why our LLM bill doubled after we enabled reasoning. CHECK exactly 3 sentences

Claude Opus 5.5 passed · 3 sentences

When we turned on reasoning, the model began "thinking out loud" before each answer, generating thousands of internal working tokens that users never see but that we are billed for just like the final response. Those hidden tokens are charged at the output rate, typically the most expensive rate, so the same question with the same visible answer now costs roughly twice as much or more. We can bring the bill back down without losing the quality gains by capping the reasoning budget and reserving reasoning mode for the complex tasks that actually benefit from it.

out 263 tok (+102 thinking) latency 5.7 s

Qwen3.8 Flash passed · 3 sentences

Enabling reasoning makes the model spend additional output tokens to plan and validate answers before responding, and those tokens are billed. It also increases compute and latency per request, so each task consumes more capacity than a non-reasoning call. As a result, billable tokens and compute roughly doubled, directly driving the higher invoice.

out 330 tok (+262 thinking) latency 8.9 s

Instruction following (exactly three sentences - countable), audience shaping (CFO register), and the hidden-thinking billing gap the token meters below expose.

PROMPT This function is supposed to return the longest run of consecutive equal items, but callers report it is off by one on single-element inputs and misses runs that end at the last index. Fix it and explain the bug in one paragraph. CHECK fix passes tests

Claude Opus 5.5 passed · 8/8 cases

```python def longest_run(xs): if not xs: return 0 best = 1 cur = 1 for i in range(1, len(xs)): if xs[i] == xs[i - 1]: cur += 1 best = max(best, cur) else: cur = 1 return best ``` **Explanation:** The original code counted *matching adjacent pairs* rather than *items in a run*. Both `cur` and `best` started at 0, and `cur` reset to 0 on a mismatch, so a run of length *n* was reported as *n − 1*. For a single-element list the loop never executes, so it returned 0 instead of 1. For `[5, 5]` it returned 1 instead of 2. The fix treats every element as the start of a run of length 1: `best` and `cur` start at 1, and `cur` resets to 1 (not 0) when the value changes. An explicit check returns 0 for an empty list. The "misses runs at the last index" reports are the same off-by-one bug rather than a separate one. […]

out 723 tok (+303 thinking) latency 10.4 s

Qwen3.8 Flash passed · 8/8 cases

```python def longest_run(xs): if not xs: return 0 best = 1 cur = 1 for i in range(1, len(xs)): if xs[i] == xs[i - 1]: cur += 1 else: cur = 1 best = max(best, cur) return best ``` The bug is that the original version counts adjacent equal pairs rather than items in a run, starting both `cur` and `best` at `0`, and it resets `cur` to `0` after a mismatch, thereby discarding the first element of the new run. That makes single-element inputs return `0`, and because every run is effectively measured in “steps” between equal elements, the last element is not counted—particularly noticeable when the longest run ends at the final index.

out 2123 tok (+1933 thinking) latency 43.8 s

Whether the fix is actually correct (runnable), explanation density, and token efficiency on a bounded task.

PROMPT Extract a JSON object with fields {company, quarter, revenue_usd_m, growth_pct, guidance} from this text. Use null for anything not stated; add no other fields. CHECK valid JSON, schema exact

Claude Opus 5.5 passed · 5/5 fields, guidance "Withheld pending Q4 close"

```json { "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": 11, "guidance": "Withheld pending Q4 close" } ``` **Judgment calls to check:** - **quarter**: Kept as "September quarter" rather than "Q3", since the fiscal calendar isn't stated. The text mentions an upcoming "Q4 close," so it may be fiscal Q3, but that's not certain. - **revenue_usd_m**: The text says only "412 for the topline." It doesn't state currency or units, and the figure is on a constant-currency basis, not reported USD. USD millions is an assumption. Use `null` if you need strictly stated values. - **growth_pct**: The source says "eleven and change," so the true figure is slightly above 11. 11 is an approximation. - **guidance**: Guidance was explicitly withheld. I recorded that rather than `null`, since the text addresses it directly.

out 829 tok (+488 thinking) latency 10.9 s

Qwen3.8 Flash passed · 5/5 fields, guidance null

{ "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": 11, "guidance": null }

out 519 tok (+463 thinking) latency 10.5 s

Schema obedience (no invented fields), hallucination pressure (guidance is explicitly withheld), and structured-output path differences.

PROMPT Write a 120-word product announcement for an API gateway feature that caches prompts across providers. Forbidden words: "seamless", "unlock", "game-changer", "revolutionize", "empower". Exactly one sentence must be a question. CHECK 120 words, 0 banned words

Claude Opus 5.5 passed · 120 words, 0 banned, 1 question

Today we're launching Cross-Provider Prompt Caching for our API gateway. Why pay twice for the same context? Our gateway now stores repeated prompt prefixes, system instructions, and document chunks, then reuses them whether your request goes to OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, or an open-source model. Teams running retrieval pipelines or long agent loops can cut token costs by up to 60 percent and trim latency on every cached call. Setup takes one configuration flag; no code changes are required. Cache rules respect tenant boundaries, expire on your schedule, and log every hit for audit review. Dashboards show savings by provider, route, and application in real time. Cross-Provider Prompt Caching is available on all Pro and Enterprise plans. Turn it on today.

out 1263 tok (+1007 thinking) latency 13.5 s

Qwen3.8 Flash passed · 120 words, 0 banned, 1 question

We are announcing prompt caching across providers in our API gateway. Store approved prompt outputs once and reuse them across supported model providers, cutting latency, cost, and duplicate token spend. The feature matches identical requests, checks validity, and returns cached results while preserving routing controls. Developers keep existing endpoints; the gateway manages storage, invalidation, and provider differences. This reduces noisy repeat calls, improves steady responses, and frees teams to focus on better agent workflows. OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Mistral, and custom routes are supported. Cache hits appear in analytics with latency, token, and cost reductions visible. Check retention and privacy rules before enabling it. Ready to add cache controls to your gateway? Enable it in settings and watch spend drop now.

out 5958 tok (+5805 thinking) latency 88.8 s

Constraint obedience (word budget, banned-word list, the single question), style fingerprint, and length control.

Switch between them with one line

Both ids are in every tab below - the highlighted pair of lines is the only edit. Same endpoint, same key, same request shape.

from openai import OpenAI

client = OpenAI(
    base_url="https://synthorai.io/v1",
    api_key="sk-syn-...",
)

resp = client.chat.completions.create(
    model="claude-opus-5-5",
    # model="qwen3.8-flash",  # uncomment this line, comment the one above
    messages=[{"role": "user", "content": "Summarize this diff"}],
    reasoning_effort="medium",
)
print(resp.choices[0].message.content)

Get your API key →

FAQ

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 5.5 or Qwen3.8 Flash?

Qwen3.8 Flash is cheaper on input / 1m tokens ($0.15 vs $4, 27× apart). Other rows may point the other way - the table above carries the full card, and real cost depends on your mix.

Can I A/B test Claude Opus 5.5 against Qwen3.8 Flash without two integrations?

Yes. Both are served through the same OpenAI-compatible endpoint with one API key - switching is a one-line model-string change, so you can route a fraction of traffic to each and compare bills directly.

Do Claude Opus 5.5 and Qwen3.8 Flash support prompt caching?

Yes - both bill cached reads below their input rate, so warm-prefix workloads cost less than the list rates suggest. The exact cache-read rows are in the pricing table above.

Related comparisons

From our measured studies