Claude Opus and Qwen Match Performance on Schema Extraction at Lower Cost
An AI engineer benchmarked Claude Opus, Qwen 3.8, and Qwen 3.6 on schema-guided document extraction and found that Opus and the smaller Qwen model achieved near-identical F1 scores with significant cost differences.
An AI engineer with a computational physics background ran a benchmark comparing Claude Opus 5, Qwen 3.8-2.4T, and Qwen 3.6-35B on the LlamaIndex ExtractBench schema-guided document extraction task. The experiment cost $40 and evaluated one-shot extraction performance across 36 government documents,...
Sign in to read the full analysis
Free account. Full analysis on LLM unit economics, plus the weekly Cost-of-Inference column.
Try it on your own context
You just read the writeup. Now run the thing. Paste a doc or some verbose tool output and watch it shrink — free, no signup.
- Source type
- Primary publication (lab/vendor blog) — our analysis + implication
- Source link
- r/ai-agents
- Published
- UTC
- Byline
- By the gotcontext.ai team (editorial standards)
- Correction?
- corrections@gotcontext.ai
Related
- Five frontier models disagreed on 23% of fact-check claimsResearch
- StateM raises agent reliability through runtime harness, not model retrainingResearch
- Model routing by document length outperforms extraction complexity heuristicsResearch
- Agent frameworks fail on strict coding tasks without mechanical groundingResearch