Model comparison
Claude Opus 5.5 vs Qwen3.6 Plus
Claude Opus 5.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.6 to 47.5 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.6 Plus costs 7.1× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 5.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 28 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 28 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen3.6 Plus in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Opus 5.5 leads 80.2 to 29.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is Mystery Game Puzzles: 71% for Claude Opus 5.5 and 12% for Qwen3.6 Plus.
- Qwen3.6 Plus is cheaper at $0.50 / $3 per million input/output tokens, against $4 / $20 for Claude Opus 5.5.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 5.5 | Qwen3.6 Plus | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 68.6 | 47.5 |
| Released | 2026-09-22 | 2026-03-31 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1M | 1M |
| Max output | 128K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $4 | $0.50 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $20 | $3 |
| Results tracked | 44 | 37 |
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), Qwen3.6 Plus: 40.8 (#130)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1813 | 1461 |
| SciCode | 66.9% | 40.7% |
| LMArena Coding | 1547 | 1467 |
| ALE-Bench | 2,147 | 670.15 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 57.9% |
| FrontierCode | 54.6% | — |
| CursorBench | 57.8% | — |
| FrontierSWE | 62.3% | — |
| MirrorCode | 77.4% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Opus 5.5: 45.3 (#15), Qwen3.6 Plus: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | 9,235 | 5,115 |
| APEX-Agents | 73.5% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 30.6% | — |
Reasoning Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 80.2 (#3), Qwen3.6 Plus: 29.3 (#93)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 88.5% | 60.3% |
| CritPt | 31.7% | 2.9% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1535 | 1449 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 71% | 12% |
| DTBench | 98.9% | 81.9% |
| LMCA | 68.2% | 33.1% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 167.33 | 147.65 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 93.3% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 98.5% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 17% |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 59.5% |
| EBR-Bench | 71.4% | — |
Math Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 91.8 (#3), Qwen3.6 Plus: 51.8 (#54)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 91.2% | 38.2% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | 93.3% |
| LMArena Math | 1506 | 1450 |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 95% | — |
| ProofBench | 100% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 26.2% |
| FrontierMath Erdős | 2.9% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 8.3% |
Knowledge Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 66.4 (#10), Qwen3.6 Plus: 56.1 (#45)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 90.6% | 88.4% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 72.2% | 44.1% |
| LMArena Expert | 1547 | 1454 |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Opus 5.5: 57.8 (#1), Qwen3.6 Plus: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| 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), Qwen3.6 Plus: 53.3 (#70)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1507 | 1424 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1588 | 1477 |
| LMArena French | 1514 | 1455 |
| LMArena Russian | 1520 | 1434 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1507 | 1432 |
| LMArena German | — | 1452 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1389 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1379 |
Instruction Following Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 80.0 (#3), Qwen3.6 Plus: 75.0 (#74)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1537 | 1425 |
Long Context Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 47.1 (#19), Qwen3.6 Plus: 45.2 (#49)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1532 | 1439 |
| CL-bench | — | 20.3% |
Writing & Preference Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 78.2 (#3), Qwen3.6 Plus: 62.2 (#82)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1515 | 1437 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1533 | 1404 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1499 | 1438 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2050 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 5.5 better than Qwen3.6 Plus?
Claude Opus 5.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.6 to 47.5 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.6 Plus costs 7.1× 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 Qwen3.6 Plus?
Qwen3.6 Plus is cheaper. It lists at $0.50 per million input tokens and $3 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 5.5 lists at $4 and $20.
Is Claude Opus 5.5 or Qwen3.6 Plus better for coding?
Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 71.9 versus 40.8 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Both accept 1M tokens.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 5.5 and Qwen3.6 Plus share?
28 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 5.5 has 44 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Plus has 37.