Model comparison
Claude Opus 5 vs Qwen3.6 Plus
Claude Opus 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 67.8 to 47.5 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.6 Plus costs 8.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 32 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 32 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 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 leads 77.2 to 29.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3): 85.6% for Claude Opus 5 and 38.2% for Qwen3.6 Plus.
- Qwen3.6 Plus is cheaper at $0.50 / $3 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 5.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3.6 Plus | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 67.8 | 47.5 |
| Released | 2026-07-24 | 2026-03-31 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1M | 1M |
| Max output | 128K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $5 | $0.50 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $25 | $3 |
| Results tracked | 57 | 37 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 67.5 (#5), Qwen3.6 Plus: 40.8 (#130)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1691 | 1461 |
| SciCode | 56.4% | 40.7% |
| LMArena Coding | 1534 | 1467 |
| ALE-Bench | 2,165 | 670.15 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 57.9% |
| DeepSWE | 73.6% | — |
| FrontierCode | 53.4% | — |
| CursorBench | 46.6% | — |
| FrontierSWE | 52% | — |
| WeirdML | 91.8% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Opus 5: 55.6 (#1), Qwen3.6 Plus: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | 11,182 | 5,115 |
| APEX-Agents | 65.8% | — |
| OSWorld 2.0 | 31.4% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 48.7% | — |
| PostTrainBench | 35% | — |
| BALROG | 63.4% | — |
| GBAEval | 79.6% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 24% | — |
Reasoning Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 77.2 (#4), Qwen3.6 Plus: 29.3 (#93)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 94.3% | 60.3% |
| CritPt | 29.1% | 2.9% |
| Chess Puzzles | 42% | 17% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1526 | 1449 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 59% | 12% |
| DTBench | 97.9% | 81.9% |
| LMCA | 64.5% | 33.1% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 162.78 | 147.65 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 90.4% | — |
| SimpleBench | 80.6% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 59.5% |
| EBR-Bench | 45.7% | — |
| Bench to the Future 3 | 0.12 | — |
Math Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 86.2 (#8), Qwen3.6 Plus: 51.8 (#54)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 85.6% | 38.2% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 98.9% | 93.3% |
| LMArena Math | 1531 | 1450 |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 73.2% | — |
| ProofBench | 99% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 26.2% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 8.3% |
Knowledge Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 66.8 (#9), Qwen3.6 Plus: 56.1 (#45)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 93.9% | 88.4% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 59.9% | 44.1% |
| LMArena Expert | 1557 | 1454 |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Opus 5: 50.8 (#8), Qwen3.6 Plus: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1319 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 30.4% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 60.8% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1516 | — |
Multilingual Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 58.8 (#4), Qwen3.6 Plus: 53.3 (#70)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1501 | 1424 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1574 | 1477 |
| LMArena French | 1519 | 1455 |
| LMArena German | 1524 | 1452 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1516 | 1389 |
| LMArena Korean | 1521 | 1379 |
| LMArena Russian | 1507 | 1434 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1519 | 1432 |
Instruction Following Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 79.2 (#7), Qwen3.6 Plus: 75.0 (#74)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1517 | 1425 |
Long Context Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 46.5 (#21), Qwen3.6 Plus: 45.2 (#49)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1515 | 1439 |
| CL-bench | — | 20.3% |
Writing & Preference Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 79.2 (#1), Qwen3.6 Plus: 62.2 (#82)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1507 | 1437 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1491 | 1404 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1499 | 1438 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2133 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1385 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 5 better than Qwen3.6 Plus?
Claude Opus 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 67.8 to 47.5 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.6 Plus costs 8.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 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 lists at $5 and $25.
Is Claude Opus 5 or Qwen3.6 Plus better for coding?
Claude Opus 5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 67.5 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 and Qwen3.6 Plus share?
32 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 5 has 57 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Plus has 37.