Which model is better: Claude 4 Opus or Qwen 3.8 Flash Next?
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 98.9% cheaper for input tokens ($0.16 vs. $15.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.47 vs. $75.00 for output tokens (93.8x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Qwen 3.8 Flash Next delivers lower response latency at 280ms TTFT (640ms faster than Claude 4 Opus) with 185 vs. 46 tok/s throughput. Qwen 3.8 Flash Next leads coding evaluations at 81.0% SWE-bench Verified vs. 77.2% for Claude 4 Opus and 91.7% vs. 87.1% on GPQA Diamond.
Verified daily via automated API latency tests and official documentation.
Zero-Shot RAG Verified
Verified Performance & Unit Economics Delta (12 Dimensions)
Daily synchronized metrics across token pricing, prompt cache economics, latency, throughput, and 5 capability benchmarks.
Metric / Dimension
Claude 4 Opus
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next
Net Delta / Advantage
Input Cost / 1M Tokens
$15.00
$0.16
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 93.8x cheaper
Output Cost / 1M Tokens
$75.00
$0.47
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (99.4% lower)
Prompt Cache Read / 1M
$1.500
$0.016
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 93.8x cheaper
Prompt Cache Write / 1M
$18.75
$0.20
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 93.8x cheaper
Context Window (Max Output)
205k (64k out)
268k (66k out)
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (1.3x larger context)
Avg TTFT Response Latency
920ms
280ms
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (640ms faster)
Generation Speed (Throughput)
46 tok/s
185 tok/s
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (+139 tok/s faster)
SWE-bench Verified (Coding)
77.2%
81%
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (+3.8% lead)
GPQA Diamond (PhD STEM)
87.1%
91.7%
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (+4.6% lead)
MMLU-Pro (Multi-Discipline)
91.8%
88.4%
Claude 4 Opus (+3.4% lead)
MATH-500 (Quantitative Logic)
98.1%
95.7%
Claude 4 Opus (+2.4% lead)
Inference Value Score (IVR)
43.6 / 100
85.1 / 100
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (+41.5 pts)
Interactive Monthly Token Economics & ROI Forecaster
Model production workloads across prompt, completion, and cached context tokens, or switch models on the fly.
Which is cheaper: Claude 4 Opus or Qwen 3.8 Flash Next?
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is cheaper at $0.16/1M input tokens ($0.47/1M output) compared to $15.00/1M input ($75.00/1M output) for Claude 4 Opus.
Which model has lower TTFT latency and higher tok/s throughput: Claude 4 Opus or Qwen 3.8 Flash Next?
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next delivers faster first-token latency at 280ms TTFT (185 tok/s throughput) compared to 920ms TTFT (46 tok/s) for Claude 4 Opus.
How do Claude 4 Opus and Qwen 3.8 Flash Next compare on SWE-bench coding and GPQA Diamond reasoning?
On SWE-bench Verified software engineering, Claude 4 Opus scores 77.2% versus 81% for Qwen 3.8 Flash Next. On GPQA Diamond graduate-level STEM reasoning, Claude 4 Opus scores 87.1% versus 91.7% for Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (and 98.1% vs 95.7% on MATH-500).
When should you choose Claude 4 Opus?
Choose Claude 4 Opus (Anthropic) for mission-critical R&D, long-horizon autonomous coding tasks, complex theorem proving, and executive strategic synthesis — offering a 204k context window, 920ms TTFT, and $15.00/1M input pricing ($1.500/1M cached reads).
When should you choose Qwen 3.8 Flash Next?
Choose Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (Alibaba Cloud) for next-generation open-weight multimodal MoE activating only 6B parameters per token for ultra-low-cost enterprise office automation, tool calling, and multilingual repository engineering — offering a 268k context window, 280ms TTFT, and $0.16/1M input pricing ($0.016/1M cached reads).
