Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.1 vs Qwen3.6 Plus
Qwen3.6 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.3 to 40.8 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 4 categories and Qwen3.6 Plus in 4 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.6 Plus leads 50.6 to 22.0.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3): 12.6% for Claude Opus 4.1 and 38.2% for Qwen3.6 Plus.
- Qwen3.6 Plus is cheaper at $0.50 / $3 per million input/output tokens, against $15 / $75 for Claude Opus 4.1.
- Qwen3.6 Plus accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 200K.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen3.6 Plus | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 40.8 | 47.3 |
| Released | 2025-08-05 | 2026-03-31 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 200K | 1M |
| Max output | 32K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $15 | $0.50 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $75 | $3 |
| Results tracked | 48 | 37 |
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: 44.3 (#69), Qwen3.6 Plus: 40.6 (#125)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | 73.3% | 57.9% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1390 | 1461 |
| LMArena Coding | 1479 | 1467 |
| ALE-Bench | 674.77 | 670.15 |
| SciCode | — | 40.7% |
| WeirdML | 45.9% | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.34 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.1: 34.8 (#38), Qwen3.6 Plus: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 38% | — |
| GDPval | 43.6% | — |
| Cybench | 42% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 48.3% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1148 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 66.8% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 5,115 |
Reasoning Claude Opus 4.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 31.6 (#70), Qwen3.6 Plus: 28.5 (#89)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 7% | 17% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1443 | 1449 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 21% | 12% |
| DTBench | 80% | 81.9% |
| LMCA | 37.1% | 33.1% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 144.11 | 147.67 |
| SimpleBench | 60% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 60.3% |
| CritPt | — | 2.9% |
| EnigmaEval | 7.2% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 59.5% |
| EBR-Bench | 7.9% | — |
| ForecastBench | 62 | — |
Math Qwen3.6 Plus leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 22.0 (#267), Qwen3.6 Plus: 50.6 (#44)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 12.6% | 38.2% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 68.9% | 93.3% |
| LMArena Math | 1430 | 1450 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 7.2% | 26.2% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | 8.3% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 2.4% | — |
Knowledge Qwen3.6 Plus leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 41.9 (#93), Qwen3.6 Plus: 56.1 (#40)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 77.3% | 88.4% |
| LMArena Expert | 1439 | 1456 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 11.5% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 44.1% |
| Confabulations | 17.1% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 11.8% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.1: 26.2 (#114), Qwen3.6 Plus: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| VPCT | 35% | — |
Multilingual Qwen3.6 Plus leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 52.1 (#90), Qwen3.6 Plus: 53.5 (#66)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1405 | 1424 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1427 | 1478 |
| LMArena French | 1432 | 1454 |
| LMArena German | 1412 | 1451 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1378 | 1389 |
| LMArena Korean | 1381 | 1381 |
| LMArena Russian | 1421 | 1434 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1448 | 1432 |
Instruction Following Too close to call
Claude Opus 4.1: 75.8 (#53), Qwen3.6 Plus: 75.2 (#70)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1436 | 1425 |
Long Context Too close to call
Claude Opus 4.1: 44.5 (#60), Qwen3.6 Plus: 45.1 (#48)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1455 | 1440 |
| CL-bench | — | 20.3% |
Writing & Preference Too close to call
Claude Opus 4.1: 62.6 (#70), Qwen3.6 Plus: 62.4 (#78)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1419 | 1437 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1412 | 1405 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1444 | 1438 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 84.7% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4.1 better than Qwen3.6 Plus?
Qwen3.6 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.3 to 40.8 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.1 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 4.1 lists at $15 and $75.
Is Claude Opus 4.1 or Qwen3.6 Plus better for coding?
Claude Opus 4.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 44.3 versus 40.6 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.6 Plus does, with 1M tokens against 200K.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.1 and Qwen3.6 Plus share?
30 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.1 has 48 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Plus has 37.