Model comparison
Claude Opus 4 vs Qwen3.5-Flash
Claude Opus 4 and Qwen3.5-Flash score almost the same on the Noometry Index (42.9 vs 42.3), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Last verified . 25 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 25 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4 scores higher in 5 categories and Qwen3.5-Flash in 3 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in coding, where Claude Opus 4 leads 47.8 to 33.9.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 64.4% for Claude Opus 4 and 84.4% for Qwen3.5-Flash.
- Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $15 / $75 for Claude Opus 4.
- Qwen3.5-Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 200K.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 4 | Qwen3.5-Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 42.9 | 42.3 |
| Released | 2025-05-22 | 2026-02-23 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 200K | 1M |
| Max output | 32K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $15 | $0.10 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $75 | $0.40 |
| Results tracked | 56 | 32 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Opus 4 leads
Claude Opus 4: 47.8 (#55), Qwen3.5-Flash: 33.9 (#234)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1442 | 1412 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 70.7% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 67.6% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | 72% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1243 |
| GSO | 6.9% | — |
| WeirdML | 43.7% | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 221.8 |
| AlgoTune | 1.33 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Opus 4: 34.5 (#39), Qwen3.5-Flash: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Cybench | 38% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 46.8% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1127 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 63.9% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 462.69 |
Reasoning Qwen3.5-Flash leads
Claude Opus 4: 27.4 (#104), Qwen3.5-Flash: 32.9 (#63)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1399 | 1404 |
| DTBench | 81.6% | 82.9% |
| LMCA | 37.4% | 29.1% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 142.67 | 143.98 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 8.6% | — |
| SimpleBench | 58.8% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 74.3% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 35.7% | — |
| CritPt | 0.3% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 21% |
| EnigmaEval | 5.6% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 20% |
| ForecastBench | 61.1 | — |
Math Claude Opus 4 leads
Claude Opus 4: 40.2 (#80), Qwen3.5-Flash: 36.3 (#117)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 64.4% | 84.4% |
| LMArena Math | 1391 | 1407 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 4.5% | 6.2% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | 0% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 18.2% |
| Omni-MATH | 61.6% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 85% | — |
Knowledge Too close to call
Claude Opus 4: 43.9 (#82), Qwen3.5-Flash: 43.2 (#84)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 76.3% | 82.3% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12% | 10.5% |
| LMArena Expert | 1384 | 1408 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 10.7% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 20.3% |
| MMLU-Pro | 87.5% | — |
| Confabulations | 15.9% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 70.8% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Opus 4: 30.9 (#101), Qwen3.5-Flash: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1192 | — |
| GeoBench | 49% | — |
| VPCT | 38% | — |
Multilingual Qwen3.5-Flash leads
Claude Opus 4: 49.0 (#133), Qwen3.5-Flash: 50.7 (#116)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1362 | 1385 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1386 | 1446 |
| LMArena French | 1370 | 1412 |
| LMArena German | 1391 | 1389 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1332 | 1369 |
| LMArena Korean | 1318 | 1344 |
| LMArena Russian | 1392 | 1379 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1388 | 1399 |
Instruction Following Claude Opus 4 leads
Claude Opus 4: 77.3 (#26), Qwen3.5-Flash: 72.8 (#133)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1406 | 1374 |
| IFEval | 91.8% | — |
Long Context Qwen3.5-Flash leads
Claude Opus 4: 39.5 (#167), Qwen3.5-Flash: 42.4 (#119)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1422 | 1392 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 61.1% | — |
Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4 leads
Claude Opus 4: 61.4 (#85), Qwen3.5-Flash: 58.2 (#117)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1377 | 1397 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1386 | 1343 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1396 | 1393 |
| 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-Flash?
Claude Opus 4 and Qwen3.5-Flash score almost the same on the Noometry Index (42.9 vs 42.3), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4 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 lists at $15 and $75.
Is Claude Opus 4 or Qwen3.5-Flash better for coding?
Claude Opus 4 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 47.8 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 and Qwen3.5-Flash share?
25 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4 has 56 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-Flash has 32.