Noometry

Model comparison

Claude 3 Opus vs Qwen3.6 27B

Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.9 to 29.3 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 6 shared benchmarks.

Claude 3 Opus Anthropic

29.3

Rank #300 Confirmed

Qwen3.6 27B Alibaba (Qwen)

41.9

Rank #112 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 6 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude 3 Opus scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.6 27B in 5 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.6 27B leads 47.5 to 13.9.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 4.7% for Claude 3 Opus and 91.1% for Qwen3.6 27B.
  • Qwen3.6 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude 3 OpusQwen3.6 27B
ProviderAnthropicAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index29.341.9
Released2024-02-292026-04-22
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window—262K
Max output—66K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.60
Output $ / M tokens—$3.60
Results tracked4611

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.6 27B leads

Claude 3 Opus: 32.4 (#261), Qwen3.6 27B: 38.5 (#162)

BenchmarkClaude 3 OpusQwen3.6 27B
SciCode—37.3%
WeirdML19.2%—
BigCodeBench Instruct45.5%—
LiveBench Coding38.6%—
LMArena Coding1264—
BigCodeBench Complete57.4%—
HumanEval+77.4%—
MBPP+73.3%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Claude 3 Opus: 24.3 (#110), Qwen3.6 27B: —

BenchmarkClaude 3 OpusQwen3.6 27B
Cybench10%—
METR Time Horizons29.5%—

Reasoning Qwen3.6 27B leads

Claude 3 Opus: 14.2 (#318), Qwen3.6 27B: 24.4 (#148)

BenchmarkClaude 3 OpusQwen3.6 27B
Chess Puzzles5%22%
DTBench61.6%78.1%
LMCA17%34.5%
Epoch Capabilities Index126.91146.47
SimpleBench23.5%—
CritPt—0.9%
EnigmaEval0.8%—
LiveBench Reasoning40.6%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1246—
Mystery Game Puzzles—7%
LiveBench Data Analysis57.9%—
ForecastBench58.4—
LiveBench49.2%—
WinoGrande88.5%—

Math Qwen3.6 27B leads

Claude 3 Opus: 13.9 (#293), Qwen3.6 27B: 47.5 (#56)

BenchmarkClaude 3 OpusQwen3.6 27B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-20254.7%91.1%
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—35.1%
LiveBench Math43.6%—
LMArena Math1273—
MATH Level 537.5%—

Knowledge Qwen3.6 27B leads

Claude 3 Opus: 24.5 (#262), Qwen3.6 27B: 52.4 (#58)

BenchmarkClaude 3 OpusQwen3.6 27B
GPQA Diamond47.2%85.9%
SimpleQA Verified12.6%—
Confabulations22.7%—
LMArena Expert1223—
MMLU84.6%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude 3 Opus: 26.6 (#112), Qwen3.6 27B: —

BenchmarkClaude 3 OpusQwen3.6 27B
LMArena Vision1023—

Multilingual Not comparable

Claude 3 Opus: 41.6 (#202), Qwen3.6 27B: —

BenchmarkClaude 3 OpusQwen3.6 27B
LMArena Non-English1258—
LMArena Chinese1248—
LMArena French1274—
LMArena German1258—
LMArena Japanese1204—
LMArena Korean1187—
LMArena Russian1280—
LMArena Spanish1246—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Claude 3 Opus: 64.3 (#223), Qwen3.6 27B: —

BenchmarkClaude 3 OpusQwen3.6 27B
LiveBench Instruction Following63.9%—
LMArena Instruction Following1248—

Long Context Not comparable

Claude 3 Opus: 38.2 (#197), Qwen3.6 27B: —

BenchmarkClaude 3 OpusQwen3.6 27B
LMArena Longer Query1259—

Writing & Preference Qwen3.6 27B leads

Claude 3 Opus: 47.4 (#208), Qwen3.6 27B: 50.3 (#180)

BenchmarkClaude 3 OpusQwen3.6 27B
LMArena Text1262—
LMArena Creative Writing1235—
EQ-Bench 4—1026
LMArena Multi-Turn1275—
LiveBench Language50.4%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude 3 Opus better than Qwen3.6 27B?

Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.9 to 29.3 on the Noometry Index.

Is Claude 3 Opus or Qwen3.6 27B better for coding?

Qwen3.6 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.5 versus 32.4 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Claude 3 Opus and Qwen3.6 27B share?

6 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude 3 Opus has 46 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 27B has 11.

Related comparisons

Go deeper