Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.5 vs Qwen3.5-Flash

Claude Opus 4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.5 to 42.3 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5-Flash costs 57× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 32 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.5 Anthropic

50.5

Rank #39 Confirmed

Qwen3.5-Flash Alibaba (Qwen)

42.3

Rank #105 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 32 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.5 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen3.5-Flash in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in coding, where Claude Opus 4.5 leads 55.4 to 33.9.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is SimpleQA Verified: 45.7% for Claude Opus 4.5 and 20.3% for Qwen3.5-Flash.
  • Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.5.
  • Qwen3.5-Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 200K.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.5Qwen3.5-Flash
ProviderAnthropicAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index50.542.3
Released2025-11-012026-02-23
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
Context window200K1M
Max output64K66K
Input $ / M tokens$5$0.10
Output $ / M tokens$25$0.40
Results tracked6932

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: 55.4 (#21), Qwen3.5-Flash: 33.9 (#234)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena WebDev14931243
LMArena Coding15041412
ALE-Bench1,025221.8
SWE-bench Verified76.7%—
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)76.8%—
SWE-bench Multilingual70.7%—
GSO26.5%—
WeirdML63.7%—
AlgoTune1.77—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.5: 47.2 (#11), Qwen3.5-Flash: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen3.5-Flash
Vending-Bench 24,967462.69
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: 42.5 (#43), Qwen3.5-Flash: 32.9 (#63)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen3.5-Flash
Chess Puzzles12%21%
LMArena Hard Prompts14761404
Mystery Game Puzzles22%20%
DTBench89.9%82.9%
LMCA44.5%29.1%
Epoch Capabilities Index150.1143.98
ARC-AGI-237.6%—
SimpleBench62%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark80.2%—
NYT Connections (extended)52.5%—
ARC-AGI-180%—
EnigmaEval11.9%—
EBR-Bench14.3%—
ForecastBench60.7—

Math Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 38.5 (#85), Qwen3.5-Flash: 36.3 (#117)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen3.5-Flash
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)34.4%18.2%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202586.1%84.4%
LMArena Math14631407
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)20.7%6.2%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)4.2%0%
FrontierMath Tier 44.9%—
ProofBench36%—

Knowledge Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 56.4 (#38), Qwen3.5-Flash: 43.2 (#84)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen3.5-Flash
GPQA Diamond86%82.3%
SimpleQA Verified45.7%20.3%
Vectara Hallucination Rate10.9%10.5%
LMArena Expert14881408
Humanity's Last Exam25.2%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.5: 31.1 (#99), Qwen3.5-Flash: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen3.5-Flash
GeoBench75%—
VPCT40%—
Furniture Assembly28.3%—
LMArena Document1462—

Multilingual Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 54.5 (#45), Qwen3.5-Flash: 50.7 (#116)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Non-English14381385
LMArena Chinese14701446
LMArena French14711412
LMArena German14491389
LMArena Japanese14151369
LMArena Korean14241344
LMArena Russian14481379
LMArena Spanish14551399

Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 77.7 (#20), Qwen3.5-Flash: 72.8 (#133)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Instruction Following14781374

Long Context Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 46.4 (#21), Qwen3.5-Flash: 42.4 (#119)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Longer Query14801392
CL-bench21.1%—

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 68.2 (#28), Qwen3.5-Flash: 58.2 (#117)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text14511397
LMArena Creative Writing14451343
LMArena Multi-Turn14661393
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1687—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.5 better than Qwen3.5-Flash?

Claude Opus 4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.5 to 42.3 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5-Flash costs 57× 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-Flash?

Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.5 lists at $5 and $25.

Is Claude Opus 4.5 or Qwen3.5-Flash better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 55.4 versus 33.9 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 4.5 and Qwen3.5-Flash share?

32 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.5 has 69 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-Flash has 32.

Related comparisons

Go deeper