Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 5.5 vs Qwen2-72B

Claude Opus 5.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.6 to 30.0 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 16 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 5.5 Anthropic

68.6

Rank #3 Confirmed

Qwen2-72B Alibaba (Qwen)

30.0

Rank #300 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher in 9 categories and Qwen2-72B in 0 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Claude Opus 5.5 leads 91.8 to 30.2.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 90.6% for Claude Opus 5.5 and 40.8% for Qwen2-72B.
  • Qwen2-72B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 5.5Qwen2-72B
ProviderAnthropicAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index68.630.0
Released2026-09-222024-06-07
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M—
Max output128K—
Input $ / M tokens$4—
Output $ / M tokens$20—
Results tracked4426

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

Category by category

Coding Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 71.9 (#3), Qwen2-72B: 29.1 (#310)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Qwen2-72B
LMArena Coding15471196
FrontierCode54.6%—
CursorBench57.8%—
LMArena WebDev1813—
FrontierSWE62.3%—
SciCode66.9%—
WeirdML—11.3%
BigCodeBench Instruct—38.5%
MirrorCode77.4%—
BigCodeBench Complete—54%
ALE-Bench2,147—

Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 45.3 (#15), Qwen2-72B: 17.0 (#146)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Qwen2-72B
APEX-Agents73.5%—
TheAgentCompany—1.1%
GDP.pdf30.6%—
METR Time Horizons—29.9%
Vending-Bench 29,235—

Reasoning Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 80.2 (#3), Qwen2-72B: 23.2 (#181)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Qwen2-72B
LMArena Hard Prompts15351191
Epoch Capabilities Index167.33125.28
ARC-AGI-293.3%—
NYT Connections (extended)88.5%—
ARC-AGI-198.5%—
CritPt31.7%—
EBR-Bench71.4%—
Mystery Game Puzzles71%—
DTBench98.9%—
LMCA68.2%—

Math Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 91.8 (#3), Qwen2-72B: 30.2 (#236)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Qwen2-72B
LMArena Math15061235
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)91.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 495%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025100%—
ProofBench100%—
MATH Level 5—39.1%
FrontierMath Erdős2.9%—

Knowledge Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 66.4 (#10), Qwen2-72B: 21.2 (#275)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Qwen2-72B
GPQA Diamond90.6%40.8%
LMArena Expert15471171
SimpleQA Verified72.2%—
MMLU—82.4%

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Opus 5.5: 57.8 (#1), Qwen2-72B: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Qwen2-72B
LMArena Vision1321—
Blueprint-Bench 251.2%—
Furniture Assembly83.3%—

Multilingual Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 59.1 (#2), Qwen2-72B: 35.9 (#244)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Qwen2-72B
LMArena Non-English15071176
LMArena Chinese15881240
LMArena French15141170
LMArena Russian15201169
LMArena Spanish15071169
LMArena German—1151
LMArena Japanese—1111
LMArena Korean—1083

Instruction Following Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 80.0 (#3), Qwen2-72B: 61.7 (#241)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Qwen2-72B
LMArena Instruction Following15371181

Long Context Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 47.1 (#19), Qwen2-72B: 36.1 (#235)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Qwen2-72B
LMArena Longer Query15321192

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 78.2 (#3), Qwen2-72B: 40.8 (#241)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Qwen2-72B
LMArena Text15151203
LMArena Creative Writing15331181
LMArena Multi-Turn14991196
EQ-Bench Creative Writing2050—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 5.5 better than Qwen2-72B?

Claude Opus 5.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.6 to 30.0 on the Noometry Index.

Is Claude Opus 5.5 or Qwen2-72B better for coding?

Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 71.9 versus 29.1 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 5.5 and Qwen2-72B share?

16 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 5.5 has 44 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2-72B has 26.

Related comparisons

Go deeper