新帳號 免費註冊,送 10 次呼叫,最高 $1,免綁卡。

Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Qwen3.8 Flash

vs

什麼情況選哪一個

兩者皆具備 1,000,000-token 上下文視窗,因此差異在於成本與輸入:qwen3.8-flash 的輸入為 $0.15、輸出為 $0.47,而 claude-sonnet-5-5 為 $2 與 $10,大約分別便宜 13x 與 21x,且其快取讀取為 $0.016 對比 $0.1。針對高用量或長上下文的工作、需要影片連同文字與圖片輸入的情況,或當您需要完全關閉 thinking 時(claude-sonnet-5-5 不允許此操作),請選擇 qwen3.8-flash。當您希望使用 Anthropic 較新的 2026-09-28 世代來執行文字與圖片任務,並能接受較高的費率時,請選擇 claude-sonnet-5-5。

Benchmark 成績

Claude Sonnet 5.5:供應商沒有公布 benchmark 成績。

高於平均沒有模型更高Qwen3.8 Flash12 / 163 / 16
Claude Sonnet 5.5 Qwen3.8 Flash 其他有成績的模型 其他模型平均 ★ 沒有模型分數更高
SWE-Bench Pro
N/A
62.5%
OSWorld 2.0 partial
N/A
52.3%
JobBench
N/A
55.7%
GPQA Diamond
N/A
91.7%
ERQA
N/A
沒有模型分數更高 72.3%
Agents' Last Exam Pass
N/A
24.3%
LVBench
N/A
76.6%

供應商公布: Alibaba (Qwen) Anthropic ByteDance DeepSeek Google MiniMax Moonshot OpenAI Tencent Z.ai

定價

Claude Sonnet 5.5 Qwen3.8 Flash Δ
輸入 / 1M tokens $2 $0.15 13×
輸出 / 1M tokens $10 $0.47 21×
快取讀取 / 1M tokens $0.1 $0.016 6.3×
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 Sonnet 5.5 Qwen3.8 Flash
工具使用 是 是
思考控制 一律開啟 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 Sonnet 5.5 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 2026-09-28 2026-08-27
知識截止日期 2026-06 -
上下文視窗 1M 1M
最大輸出 128K 131K
思考參數 thinking.type
  • enable_thinking
  • thinking_budget
  • preserve_thinking
可接受的值
thinking.type
  • adaptive (default)
  • between_tools
enable_thinking
  • true
  • false
thinking_budget
  • in tokens
preserve_thinking
  • true
  • false
預設值 adaptive, effort high

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 Sonnet 5.5 · Qwen3.8 Flash

同一段提示詞,兩個模型,經閘道實測

提示詞 Explain to a CFO, in exactly three sentences, why our LLM bill doubled after we enabled reasoning. 檢查 恰好 3 句

Claude Sonnet 5.5 通過 · 3 sentences

Enabling reasoning makes the model "think" before it answers, and that internal thinking is generated as extra text (reasoning tokens) that we are billed for at the same rate as output tokens, even though users never see it. Output tokens also cost several times more than input tokens, so a single request that used to produce a short answer can now generate many times more billable text behind the scenes. Because our request volume and prompts didn't change, the doubling comes almost entirely from this hidden thinking, and we can bring it down by limiting reasoning effort, turning it off for simple tasks, and reserving it for the workloads where the accuracy gain justifies the cost.

輸出 205 tok 延遲 3.6 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。

提示詞 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. 檢查 修正後通過測試

Claude Sonnet 5.5 通過 · 8/8 cases

**The bug:** `cur` counts the number of *adjacent equal pairs* rather than the number of items in the run. A run of length k contains only k−1 such pairs, so every result is one too small. The counter also starts at 0 and the loop starts at index 1, so a single-element list never updates `best` and returns 0 instead of 1. (An empty list should return 0.) In addition, `cur` resets to 0 on a mismatch, when it should reset to 1, because the item at `xs[i]` begins a new run of length 1. The claim that it "misses runs ending at the last index" is really the same off-by-one: the final run is counted, but as one less than its true length. Because `best` is updated inside the loop on every extension, the last run isn't skipped. […]

輸出 444 tok 延遲 6.7 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。

提示詞 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. 檢查 有效的 JSON,完全符合 schema

Claude Sonnet 5.5 通過 · 5/5 fields, guidance null

Here is the extracted JSON: ```json { "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": 11, "guidance": null } ``` Notes on the choices: - **quarter**: The text says "September quarter" without specifying a fiscal year or Q-number, so I kept the wording as stated. - **revenue_usd_m**: The text gives "412" for the topline, with no currency or unit stated explicitly. I've taken it as 412 million USD per the field definition, but the text does not confirm that, and the figure is constant-currency. - **growth_pct**: "Eleven and change" means slightly above 11, so 11 is an approximation. The exact figure isn't given. - **guidance**: Guidance is withheld pending the Q4 close, so no guidance is stated, hence null.

輸出 300 tok 延遲 3.5 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。

提示詞 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. 檢查 120 詞,0 個禁用詞

Claude Sonnet 5.5 通過 · 122 words, 0 banned, 1 question

**Introducing Cross-Provider Prompt Caching** Your API gateway now caches prompts across every connected LLM provider, whether you route traffic to OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, or a self-hosted model. Here's how it works: the gateway fingerprints each prompt prefix, stores it centrally, and applies the right provider-specific caching mechanism automatically. When you switch providers or fail over during an outage, your cached context follows you. Early testing shows input token costs dropping by up to 70% on repeated system prompts and long documents, with latency improvements of 40% or more on cache hits. Tired of paying to send the same instructions thousands of times a day? Enable it with one configuration flag. Cache rules, TTLs, and per-team isolation are available in the dashboard today.

輸出 266 tok 延遲 3.8 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-sonnet-5-5",
    # 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)

取得 API 金鑰 →

常見問題

Claude Sonnet 5.5 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 $2,相差 13×)。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 Sonnet 5.5 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 Sonnet 5.5 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。

相關比較