Claude Opus 5.5 vs Qwen3.8 Max
什麼情況選哪一個
這兩者的整體規格很接近：兩者皆接收文字與圖片輸入並回傳文字，兩者的脈絡長度皆接近一百萬個 token（claude-opus-5-5 為 1000000，而 qwen3.8-max 為 983616），最大輸出相當（128000 與 131072），因此真正的差異在於費率表與思考行為。若是大流量工作請選擇 qwen3.8-max，其輸入為 $2 且輸出為 $6（對比於 $4 與 $20），輸入大約便宜 2 倍，輸出大約便宜 3.3 倍。當你想要推理模式始終啟動時，請選擇 claude-opus-5-5，因為思考功能無法停用，加上其快取讀取稍微便宜，為 $0.2（對比於 $0.25）。
Benchmark 成績
供應商公布： Alibaba (Qwen) Anthropic ByteDance DeepSeek Google MiniMax Moonshot OpenAI Tencent Z.ai
定價
| Claude Opus 5.5 | Qwen3.8 Max | Δ | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 輸入 / 1M tokens | $4 | $2 | 2× |
| 輸出 / 1M tokens | $20 | $6 | 3.3× |
| 快取讀取 / 1M tokens | $0.2 | $0.25 | 0.8× |
| 快取寫入 | 1.25x (5m) / 2x (1h) | 1.25x | - |
費率取自網站建置時的即時目錄；各模型頁面都列有最新的價目。
兩者的相對位置：每 1M tokens 的輸入價格，涵蓋同一計費單位下全部 77 個聊天模型（對數尺度）
功能
| Claude Opus 5.5 | Qwen3.8 Max | |
|---|---|---|
| 工具使用 | 是 | 是 |
| 思考控制 | 一律開啟 | 是，但供應商未公布調整參數 |
| 結構化輸出 | 是 | 是 |
| 提示詞快取 | 顯式（由你標記前綴） | 隱式 + 顯式 |
| 快取存活時間 | 5m default, 1h option | explicit: 5m, reset on hit |
| 最小快取前綴 | 1024 個 token | 1024 個 token |
規格
| Claude Opus 5.5 | Qwen3.8 Max | |
|---|---|---|
| 輸入模態 | 文字 圖像 | 文字 圖像 |
| 輸出模態 | 文字 | 文字 |
| 發布日期 | 2026-09-22 | 2026-08-03 |
| 知識截止日期 | 2026-06 | - |
| 上下文視窗 | 1M | 984K |
| 最大輸出 | 128K | 131K |
| 思考參數 | output_config.effort | - |
| 可接受的值 | output_config.effort
| - |
| 預設值 | medium | - |
規格摘錄自各供應商的文件；供應商沒有公布的項目就直接略過，不自行推測。 完整來源： Claude Opus 5.5 · Qwen3.8 Max
同一段提示詞，兩個模型，經閘道實測
Claude Opus 5.5 通過 · 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.
輸出 263 tok (+102 思考) 延遲 5.7 s
Qwen3.8 Max 通過 · 3 sentences
Enabling reasoning makes the model produce additional hidden steps before responding, and those tokens are billable. It also tends to lengthen each interaction because the model works through more possibilities before settling on an answer. Therefore, the bill doubled mainly due to higher compute and token usage per request, not necessarily because the number of requests doubled.
輸出 378 tok (+305 思考) 延遲 8.6 s
是否照指令做（剛好三句，數得出來）、語氣是否貼合對象（寫給 CFO 看），以及下方 token 計量顯示出的隱藏思考計費落差。
Claude Opus 5.5 通過 · 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. […]
輸出 723 tok (+303 思考) 延遲 10.4 s
Qwen3.8 Max 通過 · 8/8 cases
```python def longest_run(xs): if not xs: return 0 best = 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 code starts `best` and `cur` at `0`, so it counts adjacent equal *transitions* rather than the number of items in the run. A run of length `n` has only `n - 1` equal-neighbor transitions, so single-element inputs return `0`, and runs that reach the end are undercounted by one. Initializing the current run to `1` for the first element, resetting it to `1` on a break, and updating `best` from that count fixes the off-by-one.
輸出 1616 tok (+1411 思考) 延遲 34.7 s
修正是否真的正確（跑得起來）、說明的資訊密度，以及在範圍明確的任務上的 token 效率。
Claude Opus 5.5 通過 · 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.
輸出 829 tok (+488 思考) 延遲 10.9 s
Qwen3.8 Max 通過 · 5/5 fields, guidance null
{ "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": 11, "guidance": null }
輸出 1199 tok (+1141 思考) 延遲 24.4 s
是否遵守 schema（不自創欄位）、面對幻覺誘因的表現（題目明確不給 guidance），以及結構化輸出路徑的差異。
Claude Opus 5.5 通過 · 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.
輸出 1263 tok (+1007 思考) 延遲 13.5 s
Qwen3.8 Max 通過 · 120 words, 0 banned, 1 question
Today, our API gateway adds prompt caching across major model providers. It stores prompts and responses in one fast cache layer. Teams can lower token spend, reduce latency, and repeat reliable answers. The feature supports OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and Mistral through one configuration. You can set retention rules, scope access, and invalidate entries quickly. How does your team maintain consistent results during provider outages? Approved cached responses keep applications stable while fallback routes recover. The dashboard shows hit rates, savings, latency, and provider usage. Engineers receive audit trails for every cached prompt, enabling safer testing. Product managers can compare cost trends before and after cache adoption. Start with a small route, then safely expand caching to production traffic right now.
輸出 2744 tok (+2591 思考) 延遲 46.3 s
是否遵守限制（字數上限、禁用詞清單、只能有一句問句）、文字風格的特徵，以及長度控制。
改一行程式碼就能在兩者之間切換
下面每個頁籤都列了這兩個模型 ID，要改的只有醒目標示的那兩行。端點、金鑰和請求格式都不變。
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-max", # 取消這一行的註解，並把上一行註解掉
messages=[{"role": "user", "content": "Summarize this diff"}],
reasoning_effort="medium",
)
print(resp.choices[0].message.content)import OpenAI from "openai";
const client = new OpenAI({
baseURL: "https://synthorai.io/v1",
apiKey: "sk-syn-...",
});
const resp = await client.chat.completions.create({
model: "claude-opus-5-5",
// model: "qwen3.8-max", // 取消這一行的註解，並把上一行註解掉
messages: [{ role: "user", content: "Summarize this diff" }],
reasoning_effort: "medium",
});
console.log(resp.choices[0].message.content);curl https://synthorai.io/v1/chat/completions \
-H "Authorization: Bearer sk-syn-..." \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{
"model": "claude-opus-5-5",
# "model": "qwen3.8-max", # 取消這一行的註解，並把上一行註解掉
"messages": [{"role": "user", "content": "Hello"}],
"reasoning_effort": "medium"
}'package main
import (
"context"
"fmt"
"github.com/openai/openai-go/v3"
"github.com/openai/openai-go/v3/option"
)
func main() {
client := openai.NewClient(
option.WithBaseURL("https://synthorai.io/v1"),
option.WithAPIKey("sk-syn-..."),
)
resp, _ := client.Chat.Completions.New(context.TODO(), openai.ChatCompletionNewParams{
Model: "claude-opus-5-5",
// Model: "qwen3.8-max", // 取消這一行的註解，並把上一行註解掉
Messages: []openai.ChatCompletionMessageParamUnion{
openai.UserMessage("Summarize this diff"),
},
ReasoningEffort: openai.ReasoningEffortMedium,
})
fmt.Println(resp.Choices[0].Message.Content)
}import com.openai.client.OpenAIClient;
import com.openai.client.okhttp.OpenAIOkHttpClient;
import com.openai.models.chat.completions.*;
import com.openai.models.ReasoningEffort;
OpenAIClient client = OpenAIOkHttpClient.builder()
.baseUrl("https://synthorai.io/v1")
.apiKey("sk-syn-...")
.build();
ChatCompletion resp = client.chat().completions().create(
ChatCompletionCreateParams.builder()
.model("claude-opus-5-5")
// .model("qwen3.8-max") // 取消這一行的註解，並把上一行註解掉
.addUserMessage("Summarize this diff")
.reasoningEffort(ReasoningEffort.MEDIUM)
.build());
System.out.println(resp.choices().get(0).message().content().orElse(""));常見問題
Claude Opus 5.5 和 Qwen3.8 Max 哪個比較便宜？
以「輸入 / 1M tokens」來看，Qwen3.8 Max 比較便宜（$2 對 $4，相差 2.0×）。其他項目的結果可能相反，完整價目請看上表；實際成本要看你的用量組合。
可以只串接一次，就對 Claude Opus 5.5 和 Qwen3.8 Max 做 A/B 測試嗎？
可以。兩個模型都走同一個 OpenAI 相容端點，用的也是同一把 API 金鑰，切換時只要改一行裡的模型名稱字串。你可以把一部分流量分別導到兩邊，再直接比較帳單。
Claude Opus 5.5 與 Qwen3.8 Max 支援提示詞快取嗎？
支援。兩者的快取讀取費率都低於輸入費率，所以前綴已經進快取的工作負載，實際成本會比官網價算出來的低。確切的快取讀取價格請見上方定價表。