Which model is better: Claude 4.5 Sonnet or Qwen 3.8 Flash Next?
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next decisively outperforms Claude 4.5 Sonnet in both pricing and capability. Qwen is 94.7% cheaper for input ($0.16 vs. $3.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.47 vs. $15.00 for output. It also leads on SWE-bench Verified (81.0% vs. 75.8%) and GPQA Diamond (91.7% vs. 84.2%), while delivering faster 280ms TTFT latency and 185 tok/s throughput.
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 4.5 Sonnet
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next
Net Delta / Advantage
Input Cost / 1M Tokens
$3.00
$0.16
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 18.8x cheaper
Output Cost / 1M Tokens
$15.00
$0.47
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (96.9% lower)
Prompt Cache Read / 1M
$0.300
$0.016
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 18.8x cheaper
Prompt Cache Write / 1M
$3.75
$0.20
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is 18.8x cheaper
Context Window (Max Output)
205k (64k out)
268k (66k out)
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (1.3x larger context)
Avg TTFT Response Latency
380ms
280ms
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (100ms faster)
Generation Speed (Throughput)
84 tok/s
185 tok/s
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (+101 tok/s faster)
SWE-bench Verified (Coding)
75.8%
81%
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (+5.2% lead)
GPQA Diamond (PhD STEM)
84.2%
91.7%
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (+7.5% lead)
MMLU-Pro (Multi-Discipline)
90.4%
88.4%
Claude 4.5 Sonnet (+2.0% lead)
MATH-500 (Quantitative Logic)
97.5%
95.7%
Claude 4.5 Sonnet (+1.8% lead)
Inference Value Score (IVR)
56.5 / 100
85.1 / 100
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (+28.6 pts)
Interactive Monthly Token Economics & ROI Forecaster
Model production workloads across prompt, completion, and cached context tokens, or switch models on the fly.
Which is cheaper: Claude 4.5 Sonnet 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 $3.00/1M input ($15.00/1M output) for Claude 4.5 Sonnet.
Which model has lower TTFT latency and higher tok/s throughput: Claude 4.5 Sonnet 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 380ms TTFT (84 tok/s) for Claude 4.5 Sonnet.
How do Claude 4.5 Sonnet and Qwen 3.8 Flash Next compare on SWE-bench coding and GPQA Diamond reasoning?
On SWE-bench Verified software engineering, Claude 4.5 Sonnet scores 75.8% versus 81% for Qwen 3.8 Flash Next. On GPQA Diamond graduate-level STEM reasoning, Claude 4.5 Sonnet scores 84.2% versus 91.7% for Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (and 97.5% vs 95.7% on MATH-500).
When should you choose Claude 4.5 Sonnet?
Choose Claude 4.5 Sonnet (Anthropic) for end-to-end autonomous coding agents, complex multi-file debugging, browser/GUI automation, and high-precision technical writing — offering a 204k context window, 380ms TTFT, and $3.00/1M input pricing ($0.300/1M 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).
