Claude Opus 5vsQwen3.8-27B
Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3.8-27B | |
|---|---|---|
| Specifications | ||
Parameters | — | 27B |
Context window | 1M | 262k |
| Benchmarks | ||
Nonsense detection BullshitBench v2Given a confidently-worded but nonsensical prompt, does the AI spot that it makes no sense and push back — instead of playing along and inventing an answer? The score is how often it clearly called out the nonsense. Higher is better. | 73% | — |
Prompt injection robustness Gray Swan IPI · k = 1Attackers hide malicious instructions inside content the AI reads — a web page, an email, a document — and try to hijack what it does. Gray Swan's indirect prompt injection benchmark measures how often such an attack succeeds when the attacker gets a single try. Lower is better. | 0.2% | — |
Prompt injection robustness Gray Swan IPI · k = 10Attackers hide malicious instructions inside content the AI reads — a web page, an email, a document — and try to hijack what it does. This variant gives the attacker 10 tries and counts an attack as successful if any of them works. Lower is better. | 1.6% | — |
Prompt injection robustness Gray Swan IPI · k = 15Attackers hide malicious instructions inside content the AI reads — a web page, an email, a document — and try to hijack what it does. This variant gives the attacker 15 tries and counts an attack as successful if any of them works. Lower is better. | 2% | — |
Agentic coding SWE-Bench ProCan the AI fix real bugs in real software? It's handed actual problems from open-source projects and has to write code that genuinely solves them. Higher is better. | — | 61.7% |
Agentic coding CursorBench v3.2Cursor's own test of harder, real-world coding tasks inside a code editor, on the refreshed v3.2 task set. Scores aren't comparable with v3.1. Higher is better. | 70% | — |
Agentic coding DeepSWE 1.1Artificial Analysis' independent test of deep, agentic software-engineering work — the AI has to plan and carry out substantial coding tasks end to end. (Version 1.1 of the test.) Higher is better. | 68.8%Best | 42.2% |
Agentic coding FrontierCode v1.1 (Main) · main splitA set of very hard, frontier-difficulty coding tasks an AI agent has to complete end to end. The score is the share of tasks in the main split it solves. Higher is better. | 53.4% | — |
Next.js coding Next.js EvalsVercel's open eval of how well AI coding agents build and migrate real Next.js apps — measured as the share of tasks the agent completes successfully. Higher is better. | 88% | — |
Supabase coding Supabase Evals · with skillsSupabase's own open benchmark: a coding agent is dropped into a real Supabase project and asked to do real work — set up a schema, fix a broken security policy, debug an Edge Function — and every run is checked against a live Supabase stack. This is the headline number, where the agent has Supabase's own skills loaded, as most people building on Supabase would. The score is the share of scenarios it got right. Higher is better. | 95.5% | — |
Supabase coding Supabase Evals · no skillsThe same Supabase scenarios, but with none of Supabase's skills loaded — so it measures what the model already knows about building on Supabase, rather than how well it follows Supabase's supplied instructions. Higher is better. | 90.9% | — |
Repo-level code generation NL2Repo-BenchTests whether the AI can turn a natural-language requirement into working code across an entire repository, not just produce a single function or patch. Higher is better. | — | 42.3% |
Software engineering QwenSWEBenchQwen's in-house coding benchmark for evaluating a model's ability to complete software-engineering work. Higher is better. | — | 79% |
Competitive coding LiveCodeBenchCoding problems published so recently the AI can't have seen them in training — a contamination-free test of raw programming skill. Higher is better. | — | 90.3% |
Agentic computer work Frontier-Bench v0.1A hard, ever-evolving set of real computer tasks — coding, system administration, data work, and more — that an AI agent has to complete on its own. Run by the Harbor / Laude Institute team as the successor to Terminal-Bench (v0.1 is the first release of the task set). The score is the share of tasks solved. Higher is better. | 43.3% | — |
Agentic terminal coding Terminal-Bench 2.1Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Higher is better. | — | 73% |
Professional tool use JobBenchTests the AI on professional workplace tasks that require using real work tools — the kind of multi-step jobs an office worker handles. Higher is better. | — | 33.4% |
Long-horizon office work CoWorkBenchTests long-running office tasks across fields including computer science, finance, law, medicine, and other productivity work. Higher is better. | — | 70.7% |
Web browsing BrowseCompCan the AI browse the web and track down hard-to-find answers? Higher is better. | 90.8% | — |
Multidisciplinary reasoning Humanity's Last Exam · no toolsHumanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects, written so you can't just look up the answer. “No tools” means the AI answers on its own. Higher is better. | 56.3%Best | 30.8% |
Multidisciplinary reasoning Humanity's Last Exam · with toolsHumanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects. “With tools” means the AI is allowed to search the web or run code while answering. Higher is better. | 64.7% | — |
Novel problem-solving ARC-AGI-3The third generation of the ARC-AGI series: instead of static puzzles, the AI is dropped into small interactive game-like environments it has never seen and has to figure out the rules and solve them on its own. Higher is better. | 30.2% | — |
Biology BioMysteryBench · hardReal unsolved-style biology puzzles — the AI has to reason its way to an answer the way a research biologist would. The “hard” split contains the toughest cases. Higher is better. | 49.4% | — |
Biology BioMysteryBench · human solvedReal biology puzzles that human experts have managed to crack — can the AI reach the same answers? Higher is better. | 90.1% | — |
Science GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | — | 89.2% |
Instruction following IFBenchTests whether the AI can follow detailed instructions and satisfy multiple constraints at once. Higher is better. | — | 79.5% |
Agentic computer use OSWorld 2.0Can the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Version 2.0 is a harder, refreshed task set. Higher is better. | 70.6% | — |
Agentic computer use Agent's Last Exam · pass@1A hard set of desktop and operating-system tasks an AI agent has to finish by looking at the screen and working the machine itself. The score is the share it passes outright — partial credit does not count. Higher is better. | — | 20.4% |
Agentic computer use Agent's Last Exam · scoreThe graded score on the same desktop and operating-system tasks in Agent's Last Exam, giving partial credit for progress beyond the strict pass-or-fail result. Higher is better. | — | 42.9% |
Business workflows AutomationBenchTests whether the AI can run real multi-step business workflows — the kind of end-to-end office processes companies want to automate — from start to finish. Higher is better. | 26% | — |
Agentic legal work Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark (Held-out)Harvey's test of whether an AI agent can complete real legal work, scored on a held-out set of tasks the model makers never see — making the numbers harder to game. Higher is better. | 11.7% | — |
Health HealthBench ProfessionalRealistic health conversations graded against detailed rubrics written by physicians — can the AI respond the way a careful medical professional would? Higher is better. | 59.8% | — |
Knowledge work GDPval-AA v2economically valuable knowledge work (v2, re-based Elo) | 1861 | — |
Community preference Arena Elo (Text)Real people chat with two anonymous AIs side by side and vote for the answer they prefer. Votes become a chess-style Elo rating on arena.ai — it measures which AI people actually like, not test scores. Higher is better. | 1495 | — |
Community preference (code) Arena Elo (Code)Like the text arena, but people vote on which AI writes better code. The votes become a chess-style Elo rating on arena.ai. Higher is better. | 1673 | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Anthropic | Qwen |
| Release date | Jul 24 2026 | Aug 14 2026 |
| Access | Proprietary | Open Weight |
Which is better: Claude Opus 5 or Qwen3.8-27B?
Claude Opus 5 leads Qwen3.8-27B on 2 of the 2 benchmarks they both report (DeepSWE 1.1, Humanity's Last Exam). Claude Opus 5 shipped 21 days before Qwen3.8-27B, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 1M (Claude Opus 5) vs 262k (Qwen3.8-27B). Claude Opus 5 is proprietary, while Qwen3.8-27B is open weight.
On DeepSWE 1.1, Claude Opus 5 leads at 68.8% vs Qwen3.8-27B at 42.2%. On Humanity's Last Exam · no tools, Claude Opus 5 leads at 56.3% vs Qwen3.8-27B at 30.8%.
Frequently asked questions
Claude Opus 5 was released by Anthropic on Jul 24 2026.
Qwen3.8-27B was released by Qwen on Aug 14 2026.
Claude Opus 5 leads on DeepSWE 1.1 — Claude Opus 5 68.8% vs Qwen3.8-27B 42.2%.
Claude Opus 5 leads on Humanity's Last Exam · no tools — Claude Opus 5 56.3% vs Qwen3.8-27B 30.8%.
Claude Opus 5 has a 1M context window; Qwen3.8-27B has 262k.
Claude Opus 5 is a proprietary model released by Anthropic. Qwen3.8-27B is an open weight model released by Qwen.
Other comparisons
Claude Opus 5vsGPT-5.6-CyberQwen3.8-27BvsGPT-5.6-CyberClaude Opus 5vsGemini 3.7 FlashQwen3.8-27BvsGemini 3.7 FlashClaude Opus 5vsMuse GlimmerQwen3.8-27BvsMuse GlimmerClaude Opus 5vsGrok 4.6Qwen3.8-27BvsGrok 4.6Claude Opus 5vsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813Qwen3.8-27BvsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813Claude Opus 5vsMistral Medium 3.5Qwen3.8-27BvsMistral Medium 3.5