ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Nov 2, 2026

Qwen3.8 27B vs Claude Sonnet 5.5

Claude Sonnet 5.5 comes out ahead, 72 to 66 on our weighted score, though Qwen3.8 27B is 4.3× cheaper per token.

  1. Alibaba (Qwen)

    Qwen3.8 27B

    Released Aug 14, 2026

    66/100
    • ECI151.8
    • Price$0.40 / $2.55
    • Context262K
    Full specs Remove Qwen3.8 27B
  2. Our pick

    Anthropic

    Claude Sonnet 5.5

    Released Sep 28, 2026New

    72/100
    • ECI166.7
    • Price$2.00 / $10.00
    • Context1M
    Full specs Remove Claude Sonnet 5.5

  3. Add a model

    Make it a three-way comparison.

01 — Verdict

Claude Sonnet 5.5 is our pick

Claude Sonnet 5.5 is the better all-round choice, scoring 72/100 against Qwen3.8 27B (66). It leads on capability, inputs & features and context window. Qwen3.8 27B 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
  • Lowest priceQwen3.8 27BQwen3.8 27B $0.938 · Claude Sonnet 5.5 $4.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextClaude Sonnet 5.5Claude 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
  • Self-hostingQwen3.8 27BPublishes downloadable weights
How the score is built
MeasureWeightQwen3.8 27BClaude Sonnet 5.5
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%7997
Price25%4920
Inputs & features15%7080
Context window10%3760
Overall100%66/10072/100
02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.

Qwen3.8 27B vs Claude Sonnet 5.5 specifications side by side
SpecificationQwen3.8 27BAlibaba (Qwen)Claude Sonnet 5.5Anthropic
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)151.8166.7 (best)
ECI rank#54 of 165#5 of 165 (best)
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions—95.6%
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics—88.8%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics—100%
SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions—46.5%
Price per million tokens
Input$0.40 (best)$2.00
Output$2.55 (best)$10.00
Cached input—$0.10
Blended (3:1)$0.938 (best)$4.00
Long-context rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceMedian of 49 providersOfficial Anthropic API
Limits
Context window262,144 tokens1,000,000 tokens (best)
Max output32,768 tokens128,000 tokens (best)
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesYesYes
PDFsNoYes
AudioNoNo
VideoYesNo
ReasoningYesYeslow · medium · high · xhigh · max
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputNoYes
Availability
WeightsOpenProprietary
API model ID—claude-sonnet-5-5
API providers53 (best)34
ReleasedAug 14, 2026Sep 28, 2026
Knowledge cutoff—Jun 2026
03 — Cost

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
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Qwen3.8 27B or Claude Sonnet 5.5?

Claude Sonnet 5.5 is the better all-round choice, scoring 72/100 against Qwen3.8 27B (66). It leads on capability, inputs & features and context window. Qwen3.8 27B wins on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

Which is cheaper, Qwen3.8 27B or Claude Sonnet 5.5?

Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper at $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 $0.938 per million tokens for Qwen3.8 27B versus $4.00 for Claude Sonnet 5.5 (4.3× 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) and Qwen3.8 27B 151.8 (#54 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 and Claude Sonnet 5.5 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. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Sonnet 5.5 has the largest context window at 1,000,000 tokens, against 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 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. They handle the same number of input types.

Are any of these open source?

Qwen3.8 27B publishes its weights 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. 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.

05 — Keep comparing

Related comparisons