Model comparison
Claude Opus 5.5 vs Qwen3.5-Flash
Claude Opus 5.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.6 to 42.5 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5-Flash costs 46× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 5.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 25 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 25 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen3.5-Flash in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Claude Opus 5.5 leads 91.8 to 37.4.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3): 91.2% for Claude Opus 5.5 and 18.2% for Qwen3.5-Flash.
- Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $4 / $20 for Claude Opus 5.5.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 5.5 | Qwen3.5-Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 68.6 | 42.5 |
| Released | 2026-09-22 | 2026-02-23 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1M | 1M |
| Max output | 128K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $4 | $0.10 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $20 | $0.40 |
| Results tracked | 44 | 32 |
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), Qwen3.5-Flash: 34.2 (#242)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1813 | 1244 |
| LMArena Coding | 1547 | 1412 |
| ALE-Bench | 2,147 | 221.8 |
| FrontierCode | 54.6% | — |
| CursorBench | 57.8% | — |
| FrontierSWE | 62.3% | — |
| SciCode | 66.9% | — |
| MirrorCode | 77.4% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Opus 5.5: 45.3 (#15), Qwen3.5-Flash: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | 9,235 | 462.69 |
| APEX-Agents | 73.5% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 30.6% | — |
Reasoning Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 80.2 (#3), Qwen3.5-Flash: 33.7 (#72)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1535 | 1403 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 71% | 20% |
| DTBench | 98.9% | 82.9% |
| LMCA | 68.2% | 29.1% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 167.33 | 143.98 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 93.3% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 88.5% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 98.5% | — |
| CritPt | 31.7% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 21% |
| EBR-Bench | 71.4% | — |
Math Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 91.8 (#3), Qwen3.5-Flash: 37.4 (#158)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 91.2% | 18.2% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | 84.4% |
| LMArena Math | 1506 | 1407 |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 95% | — |
| ProofBench | 100% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 6.2% |
| FrontierMath Erdős | 2.9% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 0% |
Knowledge Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 66.4 (#10), Qwen3.5-Flash: 43.2 (#93)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 90.6% | 82.3% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 72.2% | 20.3% |
| LMArena Expert | 1547 | 1407 |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 10.5% |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Opus 5.5: 57.8 (#1), Qwen3.5-Flash: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1321 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 51.2% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 83.3% | — |
Multilingual Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 59.1 (#2), Qwen3.5-Flash: 50.5 (#121)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1507 | 1385 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1588 | 1446 |
| LMArena French | 1514 | 1412 |
| LMArena Russian | 1520 | 1379 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1507 | 1400 |
| LMArena German | — | 1390 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1368 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1344 |
Instruction Following Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 80.0 (#3), Qwen3.5-Flash: 72.6 (#139)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1537 | 1374 |
Long Context Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 47.1 (#19), Qwen3.5-Flash: 42.4 (#124)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1532 | 1392 |
Writing & Preference Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 78.2 (#3), Qwen3.5-Flash: 57.9 (#122)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1515 | 1397 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1533 | 1343 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1499 | 1393 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2050 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 5.5 better than Qwen3.5-Flash?
Claude Opus 5.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.6 to 42.5 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5-Flash costs 46× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 5.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 5.5 or Qwen3.5-Flash?
Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 5.5 lists at $4 and $20.
Is Claude Opus 5.5 or Qwen3.5-Flash better for coding?
Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 71.9 versus 34.2 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Both accept 1M tokens.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 5.5 and Qwen3.5-Flash share?
25 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 5.5 has 44 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-Flash has 32.