Claude Opus 5 vs Qwen3.8 Flash
什麼情況選哪一個
兩者皆具備 1,000,000-token 視窗並可關閉思考功能,因此真正的區別在於價格與輸入:claude-opus-5 的成本為每百萬輸入 $5 與每百萬輸出 $25,大約是 qwen3.8-flash $0.15 與 $0.47 的 33x 與 53x,而後者的快取讀取為 $0.016 對上 $0.5。對於高處理量或長上下文工作以及任何涉及影片的內容請選擇 qwen3.8-flash,因為它接受文字、圖片與影片,而 claude-opus-5 僅接受文字與圖片。當您希望在困難的對話、程式碼與工具呼叫任務上使用其思考與推理技術堆疊,且能接受較高的溢價時,請選擇 claude-opus-5。
Benchmark 成績
兩邊都有成績的有 5 項。
供應商公布: Alibaba (Qwen) Anthropic ByteDance DeepSeek Google MiniMax Moonshot OpenAI Tencent Z.ai
定價
| Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3.8 Flash | Δ | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 輸入 / 1M tokens | $5 | $0.15 | 33× |
| 輸出 / 1M tokens | $25 | $0.47 | 53× |
| 快取讀取 / 1M tokens | $0.5 | $0.016 | 31× |
| 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 | Qwen3.8 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| 工具使用 | 是 | 是 |
| 思考控制 | 可設定 | 可設定 |
| 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 | Qwen3.8 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| 輸入模態 | 文字 圖像 | 文字 圖像 影片 |
| 輸出模態 | 文字 | 文字 |
| 發布日期 | 2026-07-24 | 2026-08-27 |
| 知識截止日期 | 2026-05 | - |
| 上下文視窗 | 1M | 1M |
| 最大輸出 | 128K | 131K |
| 思考參數 |
|
|
| 可接受的值 | thinking.type
effort
| enable_thinking
thinking_budget
preserve_thinking
|
| 預設值 | thinking on effort
| 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 |
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 · Qwen3.8 Flash
同一段提示詞,兩個模型,經閘道實測
Claude Opus 5 通過 · 3 sentences
When reasoning is enabled, the model generates a hidden chain of "thinking" tokens before it writes the visible answer, and those internal tokens are billed at the output rate even though no one ever sees them — commonly 3–10x more tokens than the response itself. Because output tokens are priced several times higher than input tokens, that added volume hits us at our most expensive rate, which is why the bill roughly doubled while our request count stayed flat. The spend is controllable: we can cap the reasoning budget per call, route only genuinely hard requests to reasoning mode and cheaper models for the rest, and track cost per successfully completed task rather than cost per token, since a single correct answer usually beats three cheap retries plus human cleanup.
輸出 529 tok 延遲 9.0 s
Qwen3.8 Flash 通過 · 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.
輸出 330 tok (+262 思考) 延遲 8.9 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 通過 · 8/8 cases
## Fixed version ```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 if cur > best: best = cur return best ``` ## The bug The counters were tracking the wrong quantity: `cur` counted *matching adjacent pairs* rather than *elements in the current run*, and both counters started at `0` instead of `1`. Since a run of length *n* contains only *n − 1* adjacent equal pairs, every result came back one too small — `[1, 1]` returned 1, `[3, 3, 3]` returned 2 — and a single-element list returned 0 because the loop body never executed and `best` kept its initial value of `0`. […]
輸出 1094 tok 延遲 16.1 s
Qwen3.8 Flash 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 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.
輸出 2123 tok (+1933 思考) 延遲 43.8 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 通過 · 5/5 fields, guidance "Withheld pending Q4 close"
```json { "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "Q3", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": 11, "guidance": "Withheld pending Q4 close" } ``` Notes on judgment calls: - **quarter**: "September quarter" is labeled Q3 because the text refers to an upcoming "Q4 close," implying a calendar-aligned fiscal year. No fiscal year is given. - **revenue_usd_m**: 412 is stated as constant-currency and hedged ("call it"), so it's approximate; the currency is not explicitly stated as USD. - **growth_pct**: "up eleven and change" means slightly more than 11, so 11 is a floor rather than an exact figure.
輸出 539 tok 延遲 7.6 s
Qwen3.8 Flash 通過 · 5/5 fields, guidance null
{ "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": 11, "guidance": null }
輸出 519 tok (+463 思考) 延遲 10.5 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 通過 · 123 words, 0 banned, 1 question
**Cross-Provider Prompt Caching** We're introducing Cross-Provider Prompt Caching in the API Gateway. Repeated system prompts, long documents, and few-shot examples are stored once at the gateway layer and reused across OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and self-hosted models. Instead of paying full input token costs on every request, your application sends a cache reference, and the gateway rehydrates the context before forwarding it downstream. Why does that matter? Teams running high-volume agents and retrieval pipelines typically see input token spend fall 40 to 70 percent, with median latency dropping by several hundred milliseconds. Caches are scoped per project, encrypted at rest, and invalidated automatically when a prompt template changes. Enable it with a single header, and see the docs for TTL tuning and per-route controls.
輸出 1593 tok 延遲 19.1 s
Qwen3.8 Flash 通過 · 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.
輸出 5958 tok (+5805 思考) 延遲 88.8 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",
# model="qwen3.8-flash", # 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",
// model: "qwen3.8-flash", // 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",
# "model": "qwen3.8-flash", # 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",
// Model: "qwen3.8-flash", // 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")
// .model("qwen3.8-flash") // 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 和 Qwen3.8 Flash 哪個比較便宜?
以「輸入 / 1M tokens」來看,Qwen3.8 Flash 比較便宜($0.15 對 $5,相差 33×)。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 和 Qwen3.8 Flash 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 與 Qwen3.8 Flash 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。