Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.5 vs Qwen3.5 27B

Claude Opus 4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.5 to 41.9 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5 27B costs 12× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 25 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.5 Anthropic

50.5

Rank #47 Confirmed

Qwen3.5 27B Alibaba (Qwen)

41.9

Rank #127 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 25 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.5 scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen3.5 27B in 2 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Claude Opus 4.5 leads 56.5 to 38.0.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is WeirdML: 63.7% for Claude Opus 4.5 and 39.5% for Qwen3.5 27B.
  • Qwen3.5 27B is cheaper at $0.30 / $2.40 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.5.
  • Qwen3.5 27B accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 200K.
  • Qwen3.5 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.5Qwen3.5 27B
ProviderAnthropicAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index50.541.9
Released2025-11-012026-02-23
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window200K262K
Max output64K66K
Input $ / M tokens$5$0.30
Output $ / M tokens$25$2.40
Results tracked6928

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

Category by category

Coding Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 54.8 (#27), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.9 (#168)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen3.5 27B
LMArena WebDev14941358
WeirdML63.7%39.5%
LMArena Coding15041427
ALE-Bench1,025349.45
SWE-bench Verified76.7%—
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)76.8%—
SWE-bench Multilingual70.7%—
GSO26.5%—
AlgoTune1.77—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.5: 47.3 (#12), Qwen3.5 27B: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen3.5 27B
Vending-Bench 24,967201.98
Terminal-Bench63.1%—
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard77.5%—
GDPval45.5%—
Remote Labor Index3.8%—
τ²-bench Airline84%—
τ²-bench Banking24.7%—
τ²-bench Retail79.6%—
τ²-bench Telecom92.3%—
Cybench82%—
DeepResearch Bench54.8%—
OSWorld66.3%—
BALROG43.5%—
LMArena Search1180—
METR Time Horizons75%—

Reasoning Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 42.6 (#51), Qwen3.5 27B: 27.5 (#117)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen3.5 27B
NYT Connections (extended)52.5%47.9%
LMArena Hard Prompts14761414
DTBench89.9%82.4%
LMCA44.5%34%
ARC-AGI-237.6%—
SimpleBench62%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark80.2%—
ARC-AGI-180%—
Chess Puzzles12%—
EnigmaEval11.9%—
Thematic Generalization—45.5%
EBR-Bench14.3%—
Mystery Game Puzzles22%—
Epoch Capabilities Index150.09—
ForecastBench60.7—

Math Too close to call

Claude Opus 4.5: 38.6 (#132), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.8 (#127)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen3.5 27B
LMArena Math14631429
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)34.4%—
FrontierMath Tier 44.9%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions—56.7%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202586.1%—
ProofBench36%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)20.7%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)4.2%—

Knowledge Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 56.5 (#44), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.0 (#150)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen3.5 27B
Vectara Hallucination Rate10.9%12.1%
LMArena Expert14871428
GPQA Diamond86%—
Humanity's Last Exam25.2%—
SimpleQA Verified45.7%—

Multimodal Qwen3.5 27B leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 31.4 (#107), Qwen3.5 27B: 39.4 (#59)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen3.5 27B
LMArena Vision—1241
GeoBench75%—
VPCT40%—
Furniture Assembly28.3%—
LMArena Document1462—

Multilingual Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 54.3 (#47), Qwen3.5 27B: 50.8 (#115)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen3.5 27B
LMArena Non-English14381390
LMArena Chinese14701478
LMArena French14711410
LMArena German14491393
LMArena Japanese14161345
LMArena Korean14241358
LMArena Russian14471390
LMArena Spanish14581407

Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 77.5 (#19), Qwen3.5 27B: 73.5 (#119)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen3.5 27B
LMArena Instruction Following14781393

Long Context Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 46.5 (#22), Qwen3.5 27B: 43.1 (#106)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen3.5 27B
LMArena Longer Query14801413
CL-bench21.1%—

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 68.1 (#28), Qwen3.5 27B: 59.3 (#111)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen3.5 27B
LMArena Text14511409
LMArena Creative Writing14451362
LMArena Multi-Turn14661410
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1687—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.5 better than Qwen3.5 27B?

Claude Opus 4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.5 to 41.9 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5 27B costs 12× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.5 or Qwen3.5 27B?

Qwen3.5 27B is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $2.40 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.5 lists at $5 and $25.

Is Claude Opus 4.5 or Qwen3.5 27B better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 54.8 versus 38.9 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.5 27B does, with 262K tokens against 200K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.5 and Qwen3.5 27B share?

25 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.5 has 69 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5 27B has 28.

Related comparisons

Go deeper