Which model is better: Claude Opus 5.5 or Qwen 3.8 Flash Next?
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 96.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.16 vs. $4.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.47 vs. $20.00 for output tokens (25.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Qwen 3.8 Flash Next delivers lower response latency at 280ms TTFT (400ms faster than Claude Opus 5.5) with 185 vs. 95 tok/s throughput. Claude Opus 5.5 leads coding evaluations at 89.9% SWE-bench Verified vs. 81.0% for Qwen 3.8 Flash Next and 93.2% vs. 91.7% 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 Opus 5.5
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next
Net Delta / Advantage
Input Cost / 1M Tokens
$4.00
$0.16
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 25.0x cheaper
Output Cost / 1M Tokens
$20.00
$0.47
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (97.7% lower)
Prompt Cache Read / 1M
$0.200
$0.016
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 12.5x cheaper
Prompt Cache Write / 1M
$5.00
$0.20
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 25.0x cheaper
Context Window (Max Output)
1,024k (128k out)
268k (66k out)
Claude Opus 5.5 (3.8x larger context)
Avg TTFT Response Latency
680ms
280ms
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (400ms faster)
Generation Speed (Throughput)
95 tok/s
185 tok/s
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (+90 tok/s faster)
SWE-bench Verified (Coding)
89.9%
81%
Claude Opus 5.5 (+8.9% lead)
GPQA Diamond (PhD STEM)
93.2%
91.7%
Claude Opus 5.5 (+1.5% lead)
MMLU-Pro (Multi-Discipline)
92.1%
88.4%
Claude Opus 5.5 (+3.7% lead)
MATH-500 (Quantitative Logic)
98%
95.7%
Claude Opus 5.5 (+2.3% lead)
Inference Value Score (IVR)
57.8 / 100
85.1 / 100
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (+27.3 pts)
Interactive Monthly Token Economics & ROI Forecaster
Model production workloads across prompt, completion, and cached context tokens, or switch models on the fly.
Choose Claude Opus 5.5 (Anthropic) for top-ranked frontier intelligence leader for autonomous multi-step agentic coding, repository-scale migrations, and complex scientific reasoning at a 40% lower workload cost than Opus 5 — offering a 1,024k context window, 680ms TTFT, and $4.00/1M input pricing ($0.200/1M cached reads).
Which is cheaper: Claude Opus 5.5 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 $4.00/1M input ($20.00/1M output) for Claude Opus 5.5.
Which model has lower TTFT latency and higher tok/s throughput: Claude Opus 5.5 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 680ms TTFT (95 tok/s) for Claude Opus 5.5.
How do Claude Opus 5.5 and Qwen 3.8 Flash Next compare on SWE-bench coding and GPQA Diamond reasoning?
On SWE-bench Verified software engineering, Claude Opus 5.5 scores 89.9% versus 81% for Qwen 3.8 Flash Next. On GPQA Diamond graduate-level STEM reasoning, Claude Opus 5.5 scores 93.2% versus 91.7% for Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (and 98% vs 95.7% on MATH-500).
When should you choose Claude Opus 5.5?
Choose Claude Opus 5.5 (Anthropic) for top-ranked frontier intelligence leader for autonomous multi-step agentic coding, repository-scale migrations, and complex scientific reasoning at a 40% lower workload cost than Opus 5 — offering a 1,024k context window, 680ms TTFT, and $4.00/1M input pricing ($0.200/1M 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).
