Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.6 vs Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct

Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.2 to 29.9 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct costs 2.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.6 Anthropic

58.2

Rank #20 Confirmed

Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct Alibaba (Qwen)

29.9

Rank #302 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher in 3 categories and Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct in 0 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Opus 4.6 leads 57.8 to 20.7.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is Kagi LLM Benchmark: 83.6% for Claude Opus 4.6 and 36% for Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct.
  • Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct is cheaper at $2.80 / $8.40 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.6.
  • Claude Opus 4.6 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 131K.
  • Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.6Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
ProviderAnthropicAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index58.229.9
Released2026-02-042024-09
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M131K
Max output128K8K
Input $ / M tokens$5$2.80
Output $ / M tokens$25$8.40
Results tracked686

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.6: 57.2 (#20), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
SWE-bench Verified78.7%—
FrontierCode26.6%—
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)75.6%—
LMArena WebDev1547—
SWE-bench Multilingual72%—
GSO41.2%—
WeirdML78%—
LMArena Coding1536—
ALE-Bench996.5—
AlgoTune1.47—

Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 51.1 (#4), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: 18.6 (#144)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
Terminal-Bench79.8%—
APEX-Agents46.3%—
Remote Labor Index4.2%—
τ²-bench Banking27.3%—
Cybench93%—
DeepResearch Bench55.3%—
OSWorld—5%
GBAEval44.1%—
LMArena Search1253—
METR Time Horizons78.9%—
Vending-Bench 28,018—

Reasoning Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 57.8 (#23), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: 20.7 (#233)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
Kagi LLM Benchmark83.6%36%
ARC-AGI-269.2%—
SimpleBench67.6%—
NYT Connections (extended)92.1%—
ARC-AGI-194%—
Chess Puzzles17%—
EnigmaEval7.6%—
Thematic Generalization80.6%—
EBR-Bench12.7%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1527—
Mystery Game Puzzles25%—
DTBench91.2%—
LMCA55.8%—
Epoch Capabilities Index155.24—
ForecastBench60—

Math Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.6: 63.0 (#31), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)66%—
FrontierMath Tier 426.8%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions78.5%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202594.4%—
ProofBench50%—
LMArena Math1519—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)40.7%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)22.9%—

Knowledge Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.6: 61.9 (#26), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
GPQA Diamond90.5%—
Humanity's Last Exam34.4%—
SimpleQA Verified47%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate12.2%—
LMArena Expert1546—

Multimodal Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 37.3 (#74), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: 33.5 (#97)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
LMArena Vision13161107
Video-MME—73.5%
GeoBench—62%
Furniture Assembly28.3%—
LMArena Document1507—
SpatialViz-Bench—33.3%

Multilingual Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.6: 57.9 (#6), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
LMArena Non-English1489—
LMArena Chinese1551—
LMArena French1513—
LMArena German1502—
LMArena Japanese1484—
LMArena Korean1464—
LMArena Russian1497—
LMArena Spanish1510—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.6: 79.5 (#4), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
LMArena Instruction Following1523—

Long Context Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.6: 48.1 (#13), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
CL-bench20.7%—
CL-bench Life17%—
LMArena Longer Query1520—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.6: 73.5 (#10), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
LMArena Text1503—
LMArena Creative Writing1505—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1809—
EQ-Bench 41223—
LMArena Multi-Turn1513—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.6 better than Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct?

Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.2 to 29.9 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct costs 2.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.6 or Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct?

Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct is cheaper. It lists at $2.80 per million input tokens and $8.40 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.6 lists at $5 and $25.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 4.6 does, with 1M tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.6 and Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct share?

2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.6 has 68 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct has 6.

Related comparisons

Go deeper