Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.1 vs Qwen3.6 Max Preview
Qwen3.6 Max Preview is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.5 to 41.0 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 26 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 26 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.1 scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.6 Max Preview in 8 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads 54.1 to 22.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 68.9% for Claude Opus 4.1 and 91.1% for Qwen3.6 Max Preview.
- Qwen3.6 Max Preview is cheaper at $1.30 / $7.80 per million input/output tokens, against $15 / $75 for Claude Opus 4.1.
- Qwen3.6 Max Preview accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 200K.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 41.0 | 51.5 |
| Released | 2025-08-05 | 2026-04-20 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 200K | 262K |
| Max output | 32K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $15 | $1.30 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $75 | $7.80 |
| Results tracked | 48 | 29 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 44.4 (#73), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 48.7 (#54)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | 73.3% | 76.7% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1390 | 1482 |
| LMArena Coding | 1479 | 1471 |
| WeirdML | 45.9% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 674.77 | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.34 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.1: 35.0 (#41), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 38% | — |
| GDPval | 43.6% | — |
| Cybench | 42% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 48.3% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1148 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 66.8% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 4,254 |
Reasoning Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 32.2 (#76), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 41.7 (#53)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleBench | 60% | 63% |
| Chess Puzzles | 7% | 20% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1443 | 1457 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 21% | 19% |
| DTBench | 80% | 87.2% |
| LMCA | 37.1% | 42.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 144.12 | 149.24 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 74.1% |
| EnigmaEval | 7.2% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 7.9% | — |
| ForecastBench | 62 | — |
Math Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 22.3 (#277), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 54.1 (#46)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 68.9% | 91.1% |
| LMArena Math | 1431 | 1465 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 7.2% | 23.1% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | 4.2% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 12.6% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 2.4% | — |
Knowledge Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 42.0 (#101), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 57.6 (#39)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 77.3% | 87.4% |
| LMArena Expert | 1439 | 1478 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 11.5% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 52% |
| Confabulations | 17.1% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 11.8% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.1: 26.8 (#119), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| VPCT | 35% | — |
Multilingual Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 52.0 (#95), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 54.2 (#48)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1405 | 1437 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1427 | 1487 |
| LMArena French | 1431 | 1449 |
| LMArena Russian | 1422 | 1445 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1448 | 1454 |
| LMArena German | 1413 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1378 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1380 | — |
Instruction Following Too close to call
Claude Opus 4.1: 75.6 (#58), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 75.7 (#55)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1435 | 1438 |
Long Context Too close to call
Claude Opus 4.1: 44.5 (#63), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 44.6 (#61)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1455 | 1457 |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 62.4 (#74), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 63.8 (#60)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1419 | 1447 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1412 | 1435 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1444 | 1456 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 84.7% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4.1 better than Qwen3.6 Max Preview?
Qwen3.6 Max Preview is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.5 to 41.0 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.1 or Qwen3.6 Max Preview?
Qwen3.6 Max Preview is cheaper. It lists at $1.30 per million input tokens and $7.80 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.1 lists at $15 and $75.
Is Claude Opus 4.1 or Qwen3.6 Max Preview better for coding?
Qwen3.6 Max Preview scores higher on coding benchmarks: 48.7 versus 44.4 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.6 Max Preview does, with 262K tokens against 200K.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.1 and Qwen3.6 Max Preview share?
26 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.1 has 48 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Max Preview has 29.