Claude Opus 5 vs Qwen3.8 Flash
何時用哪一個
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
雙方都被測過的 5 項。
廠商公布: 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 | - |
費率取自建置時的即時目錄;各模型頁面皆附有目前的費率卡。
它們的相對位置 — 在此計費單位下,所有 71 個 聊天 模型的 每 1M tokens 的輸入價格(對數尺度)
能力
| Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3.8 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| 工具使用 | 是 | 是 |
| 思考控制 | 可配置 | 可配置 |
| 結構化輸出 | 是 | 是 |
| 提示快取 | 顯式(由您標記前綴) | 隱式 + 顯式 |
| 快取生命週期 | 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 影像 | 文字 影像 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;供應商未發布的資料列會直接省略,而非自行推測。 完整來源: Claude Opus 5 · Qwen3.8 Flash
單一提示詞,兩款模型 — 經由閘道測量
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
指令遵循(恰好三句,可數)、受眾適配(面向 CFO 的語氣),以及下方 token 計量所暴露的隱藏思考計費缺口。
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
修復是否真的正確(可執行)、解釋的資訊密度,以及在一個邊界明確的任務上的 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
schema 服從度(不臆造欄位)、幻覺壓力(guidance 明確被暫緩給出),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
約束服從度(字數預算、禁用詞表、唯一的那句問句)、文風指紋,以及長度控制。
只需一行程式碼即可在兩者間切換
以下每個頁籤中都有這兩個 ID — 醒目提示的這兩行是唯一的修改處。相同的端點,相同的金鑰,相同的請求結構。
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", # 取消註解此行,並註解上一行
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", // 取消註解此行,並註解上一行
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", # 取消註解此行,並註解上一行
"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", // 取消註解此行,並註解上一行
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") // 取消註解此行,並註解上一行
.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?
Qwen3.8 Flash 在 輸入 / 1m tokens 上較便宜($0.15 對比 $5,相差 33×)。其他項目可能呈現相反結果 — 上表提供完整資訊,實際成本取決於您的使用組合。
我可以在不進行兩次整合的情況下,對 Claude Opus 5 和 Qwen3.8 Flash 進行 A/B 測試嗎?
可以。兩者皆透過同一個相容 OpenAI 的端點提供服務,並使用同一把 API 金鑰 — 切換只需更改一行的模型字串,因此您可以將部分流量分別導向兩者並直接比較帳單。
Claude Opus 5 與 Qwen3.8 Flash 支援提示快取嗎?
是的 — 兩者的快取讀取費率皆低於其輸入費率,因此具有暖前綴的工作負載成本會低於牌價所示。確切的快取讀取列請見上方的定價表。