Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.6 vs Qwen3.6 Max Preview

Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.2 to 51.5 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.6 Max Preview costs 3.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 29 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.6 Anthropic

58.2

Rank #20 Confirmed

Qwen3.6 Max Preview Alibaba (Qwen)

51.5

Rank #43 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 29 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen3.6 Max Preview in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Opus 4.6 leads 57.8 to 41.7.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 92.1% for Claude Opus 4.6 and 74.1% for Qwen3.6 Max Preview.
  • Qwen3.6 Max Preview is cheaper at $1.30 / $7.80 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.6.
  • Claude Opus 4.6 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 262K.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.6Qwen3.6 Max Preview
ProviderAnthropicAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index58.251.5
Released2026-02-042026-04-20
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
Context window1M262K
Max output128K66K
Input $ / M tokens$5$1.30
Output $ / M tokens$25$7.80
Results tracked6829

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

Category by category

Coding Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 57.2 (#20), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 48.7 (#54)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen3.6 Max Preview
SWE-bench Verified78.7%76.7%
LMArena WebDev15471482
LMArena Coding15361471
FrontierCode26.6%—
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)75.6%—
SWE-bench Multilingual72%—
GSO41.2%—
WeirdML78%—
ALE-Bench996.5—
AlgoTune1.47—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.6: 51.1 (#4), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen3.6 Max Preview
Vending-Bench 28,0184,254
Terminal-Bench79.8%—
APEX-Agents46.3%—
Remote Labor Index4.2%—
τ²-bench Banking27.3%—
Cybench93%—
DeepResearch Bench55.3%—
GBAEval44.1%—
LMArena Search1253—
METR Time Horizons78.9%—

Reasoning Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 57.8 (#23), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 41.7 (#53)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen3.6 Max Preview
SimpleBench67.6%63%
NYT Connections (extended)92.1%74.1%
Chess Puzzles17%20%
LMArena Hard Prompts15271457
Mystery Game Puzzles25%19%
DTBench91.2%87.2%
LMCA55.8%42.5%
Epoch Capabilities Index155.24149.24
ARC-AGI-269.2%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark83.6%—
ARC-AGI-194%—
EnigmaEval7.6%—
Thematic Generalization80.6%—
EBR-Bench12.7%—
ForecastBench60—

Math Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 63.0 (#31), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 54.1 (#46)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen3.6 Max Preview
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202594.4%91.1%
LMArena Math15191465
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)40.7%23.1%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)22.9%4.2%
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)66%—
FrontierMath Tier 426.8%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions78.5%—
ProofBench50%—

Knowledge Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 61.9 (#26), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 57.6 (#39)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen3.6 Max Preview
GPQA Diamond90.5%87.4%
SimpleQA Verified47%52%
LMArena Expert15461478
Humanity's Last Exam34.4%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate12.2%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.6: 37.3 (#74), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen3.6 Max Preview
LMArena Vision1316—
Furniture Assembly28.3%—
LMArena Document1507—

Multilingual Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 57.9 (#6), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 54.2 (#48)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen3.6 Max Preview
LMArena Non-English14891437
LMArena Chinese15511487
LMArena French15131449
LMArena Russian14971445
LMArena Spanish15101454
LMArena German1502—
LMArena Japanese1484—
LMArena Korean1464—

Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 79.5 (#4), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 75.7 (#55)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen3.6 Max Preview
LMArena Instruction Following15231438

Long Context Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 48.1 (#13), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 44.6 (#61)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen3.6 Max Preview
LMArena Longer Query15201457
CL-bench20.7%—
CL-bench Life17%—

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 73.5 (#10), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 63.8 (#60)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen3.6 Max Preview
LMArena Text15031447
LMArena Creative Writing15051435
LMArena Multi-Turn15131456
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1809—
EQ-Bench 41223—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.6 better than Qwen3.6 Max Preview?

Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.2 to 51.5 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.6 Max Preview costs 3.4× 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 Qwen3.6 Max Preview?

Qwen3.6 Max Preview is cheaper. It lists at $1.30 per million input tokens and $7.80 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.6 lists at $5 and $25.

Is Claude Opus 4.6 or Qwen3.6 Max Preview better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 57.2 versus 48.7 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 4.6 does, with 1M tokens against 262K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.6 and Qwen3.6 Max Preview share?

29 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.6 has 68 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Max Preview has 29.

Related comparisons

Go deeper