Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.1 vs Qwen3.5-Flash
Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.5 to 41.0 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 30 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 30 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.1 scores higher in 5 categories and Qwen3.5-Flash in 3 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.5-Flash leads 37.4 to 22.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 68.9% for Claude Opus 4.1 and 84.4% for Qwen3.5-Flash.
- Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $15 / $75 for Claude Opus 4.1.
- Qwen3.5-Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 200K.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen3.5-Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 41.0 | 42.5 |
| Released | 2025-08-05 | 2026-02-23 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 200K | 1M |
| Max output | 32K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $15 | $0.10 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $75 | $0.40 |
| Results tracked | 48 | 32 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Opus 4.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 44.4 (#73), Qwen3.5-Flash: 34.2 (#242)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1390 | 1244 |
| LMArena Coding | 1479 | 1412 |
| ALE-Bench | 674.77 | 221.8 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 73.3% | — |
| WeirdML | 45.9% | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.34 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.1: 35.0 (#41), Qwen3.5-Flash: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 38% | — |
| GDPval | 43.6% | — |
| Cybench | 42% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 48.3% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1148 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 66.8% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 462.69 |
Reasoning Qwen3.5-Flash leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 32.2 (#76), Qwen3.5-Flash: 33.7 (#72)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 7% | 21% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1443 | 1403 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 21% | 20% |
| DTBench | 80% | 82.9% |
| LMCA | 37.1% | 29.1% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 144.12 | 143.98 |
| SimpleBench | 60% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 7.2% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 7.9% | — |
| ForecastBench | 62 | — |
Math Qwen3.5-Flash leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 22.3 (#277), Qwen3.5-Flash: 37.4 (#158)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 12.6% | 18.2% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 68.9% | 84.4% |
| LMArena Math | 1431 | 1407 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 7.2% | 6.2% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | 0% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 2.4% | — |
Knowledge Qwen3.5-Flash leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 42.0 (#101), Qwen3.5-Flash: 43.2 (#93)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 77.3% | 82.3% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 11.8% | 10.5% |
| LMArena Expert | 1439 | 1407 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 11.5% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 20.3% |
| Confabulations | 17.1% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.1: 26.8 (#119), Qwen3.5-Flash: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| VPCT | 35% | — |
Multilingual Claude Opus 4.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 52.0 (#95), Qwen3.5-Flash: 50.5 (#121)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1405 | 1385 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1427 | 1446 |
| LMArena French | 1431 | 1412 |
| LMArena German | 1413 | 1390 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1378 | 1368 |
| LMArena Korean | 1380 | 1344 |
| LMArena Russian | 1422 | 1379 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1448 | 1400 |
Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 75.6 (#58), Qwen3.5-Flash: 72.6 (#139)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1435 | 1374 |
Long Context Claude Opus 4.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 44.5 (#63), Qwen3.5-Flash: 42.4 (#124)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1455 | 1392 |
Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 62.4 (#74), Qwen3.5-Flash: 57.9 (#122)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1419 | 1397 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1412 | 1343 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1444 | 1393 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 84.7% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4.1 better than Qwen3.5-Flash?
Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.5 to 41.0 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.1 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 4.1 lists at $15 and $75.
Is Claude Opus 4.1 or Qwen3.5-Flash better for coding?
Claude Opus 4.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 44.4 versus 34.2 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.5-Flash does, with 1M tokens against 200K.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.1 and Qwen3.5-Flash share?
30 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.1 has 48 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-Flash has 32.