Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.6 vs Qwen2.5 Plus 1127
Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 38.1 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 14 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Opus 4.6 leads 57.7 to 24.8.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 4.6 | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 58.3 | 38.1 |
| Released | 2026-02-04 | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1M | — |
| Max output | 128K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $5 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $25 | — |
| Results tracked | 68 | 14 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 57.7 (#15), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 37.9 (#171)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1535 | 1314 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 78.7% | — |
| FrontierCode | 26.6% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 75.6% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1546 | — |
| SWE-bench Multilingual | 72% | — |
| GSO | 41.2% | — |
| WeirdML | 78% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 996.5 | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.47 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.6: 51.0 (#4), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 79.8% | — |
| APEX-Agents | 46.3% | — |
| Remote Labor Index | 4.2% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 27.3% | — |
| Cybench | 93% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 55.3% | — |
| GBAEval | 44.1% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1253 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 78.9% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 8,018 | — |
Reasoning Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 57.7 (#21), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 24.8 (#139)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1527 | 1299 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 69.2% | — |
| SimpleBench | 67.6% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 83.6% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 92.1% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 94% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 17% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 7.6% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 80.6% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 12.7% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 25% | — |
| DTBench | 91.2% | — |
| LMCA | 55.8% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 155.36 | — |
| ForecastBench | 60 | — |
Math Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 62.7 (#25), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 33.5 (#175)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1517 | 1298 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 66% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 26.8% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 78.5% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 94.4% | — |
| ProofBench | 50% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 40.7% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 22.9% | — |
Knowledge Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 61.8 (#23), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 34.9 (#179)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1546 | 1289 |
| GPQA Diamond | 90.5% | — |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 34.4% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 47% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12.2% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.6: 37.0 (#67), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1316 | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 28.3% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1507 | — |
Multilingual Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 58.2 (#4), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 42.1 (#196)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1490 | 1265 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1551 | 1314 |
| LMArena German | 1504 | 1231 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1484 | 1207 |
| LMArena Russian | 1497 | 1271 |
| LMArena French | 1513 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1465 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1512 | — |
Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 79.7 (#3), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 67.4 (#194)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1523 | 1275 |
Long Context Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 48.1 (#13), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 39.2 (#180)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1520 | 1292 |
| CL-bench | 20.7% | — |
| CL-bench Life | 17% | — |
Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 73.7 (#9), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 49.5 (#186)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1504 | 1299 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1506 | 1262 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1514 | 1299 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1809 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1223 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4.6 better than Qwen2.5 Plus 1127?
Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 38.1 on the Noometry Index.
Is Claude Opus 4.6 or Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 better for coding?
Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 57.7 versus 37.9 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.6 and Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 share?
14 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.6 has 68 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 has 14.