I am seriously impressed and want to share my experience.

Qwen3.8-Flash-Next (local) vs Claude in Claude Code: reviewing one real commit

I ran the same code review twice on one commit in my repo https://github.com/leok7v/ChatOKF (Swift, on-device LLM chat app, about 48 files changed, +1048/-102: a module move plus a new 783-line search harness).

Setup: Qwen3.8-Flash-Next UD-Q4_K_XL (unsloth) on llama-server, ROCm, AMD Strix Halo 128 GB, 262K context, MTP draft head, driven headless by Claude Code itself (claude -p pointed at the local server, read-only tools). The comparison reviewer was Claude (Opus) in Claude Code, which reviewed blind first and then judged Qwen's review against the code. Yes, Claude judging its own competitor is a bias; every finding below was checked against the source, and the main one with a small Swift repro.

Result: Qwen produced 8 findings, all real, zero false positives. It caught 2 things Claude missed (a test harness that does not follow the app's recall path, and a markdown ingest that takes the frontmatter "---" as a description). It missed 5 that Claude found, including the most important one: a stop-word filter that compares stemmed words with an unstemmed list, so "this" and "does" leak through as search terms. It also got two details wrong (the exact fallback behavior of a failable init, and column counts off by a few). Severity calibration and the "checked and fine" section were good. It read whole files and chased module boundaries like a careful human.