Claude Opus 5 (High) vs Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Which is better for the money: Claude Opus 5 (High) by Anthropic or Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B by Alibaba? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-26.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Claude Opus 5 (High) scores 8.2 points higher (48.1 vs 39.9) but costs 1.6× as much to run the benchmark ($4332 vs $2632; both flagship class). Pick Claude Opus 5 (High) when the extra intelligence is worth the premium, otherwise Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B.
| Metric | Claude Opus 5 (High) | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 48.1 | 39.9 | −17.0% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 17.0% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $4,331.68 | $2,632.05 | −39.2% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 39.2% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 29.14s | 64.84s | +122.5% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 122.5% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $5.00 / $25.0 | $2.00 / $6.00 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs Claude Opus 5 (High): 17.0% less intelligence, 39.2% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 122.5% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Claude Opus 5 (High) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Opus 5.5 (Xhigh, Default Fallback) scores 56.00 for $4057.
- Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Opus 5.5 (High, Default Fallback) scores 53.60 for $2172.
Claude Opus 5 (High)Qwen3.8 2.4T A95BToday's Pareto frontierOpen-weights frontierEvery other model
Matchup
Compare something else
Agents:
Accept: text/markdown or ?format=md returns this page as Markdown. JSON: /api/v1/compare/claude-opus-5-high/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/claude-opus-5-high/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill