Qwen3.8 27B vs Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Inkling Small
Claude Sonnet 5.5 comes out ahead, 72 to 68 and 66 on our weighted score, though Inkling Small is 5× cheaper per token.
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3.8 27B
66/100- ECI151.8
- Price$0.40 / $2.55
- Context262K
- Our pick
AnthropicClaude Sonnet 5.5
72/100- ECI166.7
- Price$2.00 / $10.00
- Context1M
Thinking MachinesInkling Small
68/100- ECI150.5
- Price$0.58 / $1.44
- Context1.05M
Claude Sonnet 5.5 is our pick
Claude Sonnet 5.5 is the better all-round choice, scoring 72/100 against Inkling Small (68) and Qwen3.8 27B (66). It leads on capability and inputs & features. Inkling Small wins on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
- CapabilityClaude Sonnet 5.5Capabilities Index (ECI): Claude Sonnet 5.5 166.7 · Qwen3.8 27B 151.8 · Inkling Small 150.5
- Lowest priceInkling SmallInkling Small $0.795 · Qwen3.8 27B $0.938 · Claude Sonnet 5.5 $4.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextInkling SmallInkling Small 1,048,576 · Claude Sonnet 5.5 1,000,000 · Qwen3.8 27B 262,144 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsQwen3.8 27B: Text, Images, Video · Claude Sonnet 5.5: Text, Images, PDFs · Inkling Small: Text, Images, Audio
- Self-hostingQwen3.8 27B and Inkling SmallPublishes downloadable weights (Apache-2.0)
| Measure | Weight | Qwen3.8 27B | Claude Sonnet 5.5 | Inkling Small |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI) | 50% | 79 | 97 | 77 |
| Price | 25% | 49 | 20 | 52 |
| Inputs & features | 15% | 70 | 80 | 70 |
| Context window | 10% | 37 | 60 | 61 |
| Overall | 100% | 66/100 | 72/100 | 68/100 |
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Qwen3.8 27BAlibaba (Qwen) | Claude Sonnet 5.5Anthropic | Inkling SmallThinking Machines |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 151.8 | 166.7 (best) | 150.5 |
| ECI rank | #54 of 165 | #5 of 165 (best) | #58 of 165 |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | — | 95.6% (best) | 88.5% |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics | — | 88.8% (best) | 46.3% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | — | 100% (best) | 90.0% |
| SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions | — | 46.5% (best) | 19.1% |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.40 (best) | $2.00 | $0.58 |
| Output | $2.55 | $10.00 | $1.44 (best) |
| Cached input | — | $0.10 (best) | $0.116 |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.938 | $4.00 | $0.795 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 49 providers | Official Anthropic API | Official Thinking Machines API |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 262,144 tokens | 1,000,000 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 32,768 tokens | 128,000 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| PDFs | No | Yes | No |
| Audio | No | No | Yes |
| Video | Yes | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yeslow · medium · high · xhigh · max | Yeslow · medium · high · xhigh · max |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | Yes | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Open | Proprietary | OpenApache-2.0 |
| API model ID | — | claude-sonnet-5-5 | thinkingmachines/Inkling-Small |
| API providers | 53 (best) | 34 | 12 |
| Released | Aug 14, 2026 | Sep 28, 2026 | Jul 30, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | Jun 2026 | — |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Qwen3.8 27B$9.10
- Claude Sonnet 5.5$40.00
- Inkling Small$8.68
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Qwen3.8 27B, Claude Sonnet 5.5 or Inkling Small?
Claude Sonnet 5.5 is the better all-round choice, scoring 72/100 against Inkling Small (68) and Qwen3.8 27B (66). It leads on capability and inputs & features. Inkling Small wins on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
Which is cheaper, Qwen3.8 27B, Claude Sonnet 5.5 or Inkling Small?
Inkling Small is cheaper at $0.58 input / $1.44 output per million tokens (official Thinking Machines API price). Qwen3.8 27B costs $0.40 input / $2.55 output per million tokens (median across 49 API providers); Claude Sonnet 5.5 costs $2.00 input / $10.00 output per million tokens (official Anthropic API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.795 per million tokens for Inkling Small versus $0.938 for Qwen3.8 27B (1.2× as much) and $4.00 for Claude Sonnet 5.5 (5× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
Claude Sonnet 5.5 scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): Claude Sonnet 5.5 166.7 (#5 of 165), Qwen3.8 27B 151.8 (#54 of 165) and Inkling Small 150.5 (#58 of 165). Their confidence ranges do not overlap (163.6–171.3 vs 149.9–153.6), so the gap is a real one.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Qwen3.8 27B, Claude Sonnet 5.5 and Inkling Small yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads, which tends to carry over to coding, but test on your own codebase. All three support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Inkling Small has the largest context window at 1,048,576 tokens, against 1,000,000 for Claude Sonnet 5.5 and 262,144 for Qwen3.8 27B. Maximum output per response: Qwen3.8 27B up to 32,768, Claude Sonnet 5.5 up to 128,000, Inkling Small up to 1,048,576 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Qwen3.8 27B accepts text, images and video; Claude Sonnet 5.5 accepts text, images and PDFs; Inkling Small accepts text, images and audio. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
Qwen3.8 27B and Inkling Small publishes its weights (Apache-2.0) and can be self-hosted; Claude Sonnet 5.5 is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Claude Sonnet 5.5 is the newest, released Sep 28, 2026. Qwen3.8 27B came out Aug 14, 2026; Inkling Small came out Jul 30, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: Claude Sonnet 5.5 Jun 2026.
How do you decide the winner?
Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Nov 2, 2026.
Related comparisons
- Qwen3.8 27B vs Mistral Large 4Mistral AI · ECI 150.6
- Qwen3.8 27B vs DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813DeepSeek · ECI 155.9
- Qwen3.8 27B vs Gemini 3 Flash PreviewGoogle · ECI 152.0
- Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Gemini 4 ArgonGoogle · ECI 166.1
- Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs GPT-6.1 SolOpenAI · ECI 167.8
- Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Muse WonderMeta · ECI 161.7
