Model comparison
Claude Opus 4 vs Qwen3.5 27B
Claude Opus 4 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.1 to 41.9 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5 27B costs 36× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 22 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 22 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4 scores higher in 5 categories and Qwen3.5 27B in 4 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in coding, where Claude Opus 4 leads 47.2 to 38.9.
- Qwen3.5 27B is cheaper at $0.30 / $2.40 per million input/output tokens, against $15 / $75 for Claude Opus 4.
- 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 | Qwen3.5 27B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 43.1 | 41.9 |
| Released | 2025-05-22 | 2026-02-23 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 200K | 262K |
| Max output | 32K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $15 | $0.30 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $75 | $2.40 |
| Results tracked | 56 | 28 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Opus 4 leads
Claude Opus 4: 47.2 (#62), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.9 (#168)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 43.7% | 39.5% |
| LMArena Coding | 1442 | 1427 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 70.7% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 67.6% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | 72% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1358 |
| GSO | 6.9% | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 349.45 |
| AlgoTune | 1.33 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Opus 4: 34.8 (#42), Qwen3.5 27B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Cybench | 38% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 46.8% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1127 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 63.9% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 201.98 |
Reasoning Too close to call
Claude Opus 4: 27.3 (#121), Qwen3.5 27B: 27.5 (#117)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1399 | 1414 |
| DTBench | 81.6% | 82.4% |
| LMCA | 37.4% | 34% |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 8.6% | — |
| SimpleBench | 58.8% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 74.3% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 47.9% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 35.7% | — |
| CritPt | 0.3% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 5.6% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 45.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 142.67 | — |
| ForecastBench | 61.1 | — |
Math Claude Opus 4 leads
Claude Opus 4: 42.0 (#86), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.8 (#127)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1390 | 1429 |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 56.7% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 64.4% | — |
| Omni-MATH | 61.6% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 85% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 4.5% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | — |
Knowledge Claude Opus 4 leads
Claude Opus 4: 44.0 (#88), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.0 (#150)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12% | 12.1% |
| LMArena Expert | 1386 | 1428 |
| GPQA Diamond | 76.3% | — |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 10.7% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 87.5% | — |
| Confabulations | 15.9% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 70.8% | — |
Multimodal Qwen3.5 27B leads
Claude Opus 4: 31.5 (#106), Qwen3.5 27B: 39.4 (#59)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1192 | 1241 |
| GeoBench | 49% | — |
| VPCT | 38% | — |
Multilingual Qwen3.5 27B leads
Claude Opus 4: 48.8 (#138), Qwen3.5 27B: 50.8 (#115)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1362 | 1390 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1386 | 1478 |
| LMArena French | 1372 | 1410 |
| LMArena German | 1391 | 1393 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1331 | 1345 |
| LMArena Korean | 1321 | 1358 |
| LMArena Russian | 1392 | 1390 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1389 | 1407 |
Instruction Following Claude Opus 4 leads
Claude Opus 4: 77.1 (#28), Qwen3.5 27B: 73.5 (#119)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1406 | 1393 |
| IFEval | 91.8% | — |
Long Context Qwen3.5 27B leads
Claude Opus 4: 39.6 (#172), Qwen3.5 27B: 43.1 (#106)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1422 | 1413 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 61.1% | — |
Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4 leads
Claude Opus 4: 61.2 (#89), Qwen3.5 27B: 59.3 (#111)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1377 | 1409 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1387 | 1362 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1396 | 1410 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 83.6% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1580 | — |
| WildBench | 85.2% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4 better than Qwen3.5 27B?
Claude Opus 4 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.1 to 41.9 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5 27B costs 36× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4 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 lists at $15 and $75.
Is Claude Opus 4 or Qwen3.5 27B better for coding?
Claude Opus 4 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 47.2 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 and Qwen3.5 27B share?
22 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4 has 56 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5 27B has 28.