Claude Opus 5.5 (max) vs Qwen3.8 Max
Head-to-head on the Towards AI writing benchmark: same 10 real YouTube scripts, five runs each, scored blind by a three-family judge panel. Claude Opus 5.5 (max) leads overall, 91.8 to 83.2.
The verdict
Claude Opus 5.5 (max effort) wins this one, and the board is not close: #1 at 2845.8 Elo and 91.77 overall, against #68, 1681.5 Elo and 83.15 overall for Qwen3.8 Max. The 95% Elo intervals do not overlap (2790.8 to 2899.6 against 1633.0 to 1735.2). Where Claude Opus 5.5 (max effort) pulls ahead: Continuity & Emotion (90.91 vs 78.41) and Tone & Voice Match (91.03 vs 80.24). Qwen3.8 Max does not take a single metric off Claude Opus 5.5 (max effort) in this pairing. The trade is price: Qwen3.8 Max costs about $0.161 per article against $3.433 for Claude Opus 5.5 (max effort), so you pay for the higher rank. Both are closed. Default to Claude Opus 5.5 (max effort). Reach for Qwen3.8 Max when the lower price matters more to you than the headline rank.
Pick Claude Opus 5.5 (max effort) for the stronger board result, continuity, and tone.
Pick Qwen3.8 Max for the lower price.
Reading the Elo intervals. Each range estimates uncertainty around one model's Elo. We repeatedly sample from every model's recorded run scores on each task and recalculate the full ranking. Comparing these separate ranges does not test the Elo gap between two models. The tasks stay fixed, so the ranges do not measure how the ranking would change on new tasks.
Metric by metric
Blue bars: Claude Opus 5.5 (max). Orange bars: Qwen3.8 Max. Same 0–100 scale; the bold bar wins that metric.
Everything else that differs
| Claude Opus 5.5 (max) | Qwen3.8 Max | |
|---|---|---|
| Overall / 100 | 91.8 | 83.2 |
| Writing Elo | 2846 | 1682 |
| Run-to-run spread (± overall std) | 0.850 | 1.980 |
| Cost per script (USD) | 3.433 | 0.161 |
| Avg latency (s) | 1,023.3 | 431.6 |
| Open weights | No | No |
Full scorecards: Claude Opus 5.5 (max) · Qwen3.8 Max. How scoring works: methodology.
← All comparisons