Model comparison
Claude Opus 4 vs Qwen3.6 27B
Claude Opus 4 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.9 to 41.9 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.6 27B costs 22× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 6 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 6 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4 scores higher in 3 categories and Qwen3.6 27B in 2 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Claude Opus 4 leads 61.4 to 50.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 64.4% for Claude Opus 4 and 91.1% for Qwen3.6 27B.
- Qwen3.6 27B is cheaper at $0.60 / $3.60 per million input/output tokens, against $15 / $75 for Claude Opus 4.
- Qwen3.6 27B accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 200K.
- Qwen3.6 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 4 | Qwen3.6 27B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 42.9 | 41.9 |
| Released | 2025-05-22 | 2026-04-22 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 200K | 262K |
| Max output | 32K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $15 | $0.60 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $75 | $3.60 |
| Results tracked | 56 | 11 |
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), Qwen3.6 27B: 38.5 (#162)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | 70.7% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 67.6% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | 72% | — |
| SciCode | — | 37.3% |
| GSO | 6.9% | — |
| WeirdML | 43.7% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1442 | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.33 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Opus 4: 34.5 (#39), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Cybench | 38% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 46.8% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1127 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 63.9% | — |
Reasoning Claude Opus 4 leads
Claude Opus 4: 27.4 (#104), Qwen3.6 27B: 24.4 (#148)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 0.3% | 0.9% |
| DTBench | 81.6% | 78.1% |
| LMCA | 37.4% | 34.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 142.67 | 146.47 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 8.6% | — |
| SimpleBench | 58.8% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 74.3% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 35.7% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 22% |
| EnigmaEval | 5.6% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1399 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 7% |
| ForecastBench | 61.1 | — |
Math Qwen3.6 27B leads
Claude Opus 4: 40.2 (#80), Qwen3.6 27B: 47.5 (#56)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 64.4% | 91.1% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 35.1% |
| Omni-MATH | 61.6% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1391 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 85% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 4.5% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | — |
Knowledge Qwen3.6 27B leads
Claude Opus 4: 43.9 (#82), Qwen3.6 27B: 52.4 (#58)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 76.3% | 85.9% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 10.7% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 87.5% | — |
| Confabulations | 15.9% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 70.8% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1384 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Opus 4: 30.9 (#101), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1192 | — |
| GeoBench | 49% | — |
| VPCT | 38% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Claude Opus 4: 49.0 (#133), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1362 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1386 | — |
| LMArena French | 1370 | — |
| LMArena German | 1391 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1332 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1318 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1392 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1388 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Claude Opus 4: 77.3 (#26), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| IFEval | 91.8% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1406 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Claude Opus 4: 39.5 (#167), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 61.1% | — |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1422 | — |
Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4 leads
Claude Opus 4: 61.4 (#85), Qwen3.6 27B: 50.3 (#180)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1377 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1386 | — |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 83.6% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1580 | — |
| WildBench | 85.2% | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1026 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1396 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4 better than Qwen3.6 27B?
Claude Opus 4 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.9 to 41.9 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.6 27B costs 22× 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 Qwen3.6 27B?
Qwen3.6 27B is cheaper. It lists at $0.60 per million input tokens and $3.60 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4 lists at $15 and $75.
Is Claude Opus 4 or Qwen3.6 27B better for coding?
Claude Opus 4 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 47.8 versus 38.5 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.6 27B does, with 262K tokens against 200K.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4 and Qwen3.6 27B share?
6 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4 has 56 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 27B has 11.