Model comparison

Claude Opus 5.5 vs Qwen3.5-2B

Claude Opus 5.5 has enough public results to be ranked (#3); Qwen3.5-2B does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 5.5 Anthropic

68.5

Rank #3 Confirmed

Qwen3.5-2B Alibaba (Qwen)

28.7

Unranked Sparse

Summary

  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Opus 5.5 leads 79.5 to 18.5.
  • Qwen3.5-2B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 5.5 and Qwen3.5-2B specifications
Claude Opus 5.5Qwen3.5-2B
ProviderAnthropicAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index68.528.7
Released2026-09-222026-02-24
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M—
Max output128K—
Input $ / M tokens$4—
Output $ / M tokens$20—
Results tracked351

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

Claude Opus 5.5: 71.4 (#1), Qwen3.5-2B: —

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Qwen3.5-2B
FrontierCode54.4%—
CursorBench57.8%—
LMArena WebDev1820—
FrontierSWE62.3%—
SciCode66.9%—
LMArena Coding1545—
MirrorCode77.4%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Claude Opus 5.5: 45.3 (#13), Qwen3.5-2B: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Qwen3.5-2B
APEX-Agents73.5%—
GDP.pdf30.6%—

Reasoning Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 79.5 (#2), Qwen3.5-2B: 18.5

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Qwen3.5-2B
ARC-AGI-292.5%—
NYT Connections (extended)88.5%—
ARC-AGI-197.5%—
CritPt31.7%—
Chess Puzzles—0%
EBR-Bench71.4%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1545—
Mystery Game Puzzles71%—
DTBench98.9%—
LMCA68.2%—

Math Not comparable

Claude Opus 5.5: 92.4 (#2), Qwen3.5-2B: —

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Qwen3.5-2B
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)91.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 495%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025100%—
ProofBench100%—

Knowledge Not comparable

Claude Opus 5.5: 66.6 (#9), Qwen3.5-2B: —

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Qwen3.5-2B
GPQA Diamond90.6%—
SimpleQA Verified72.2%—
LMArena Expert1564—

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Opus 5.5: 56.5 (#2), Qwen3.5-2B: —

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Qwen3.5-2B
Furniture Assembly83.3%—

Multilingual Not comparable

Claude Opus 5.5: 59.8 (#1), Qwen3.5-2B: —

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Qwen3.5-2B
LMArena Non-English1513—
LMArena Chinese1572—
LMArena Russian1532—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Claude Opus 5.5: 80.1 (#2), Qwen3.5-2B: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Qwen3.5-2B
LMArena Instruction Following1535—

Long Context Not comparable

Claude Opus 5.5: 47.3 (#18), Qwen3.5-2B: —

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Qwen3.5-2B
LMArena Longer Query1540—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Claude Opus 5.5: 78.7 (#3), Qwen3.5-2B: —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Qwen3.5-2B
LMArena Text1518—
LMArena Creative Writing1538—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing2050—
LMArena Multi-Turn1520—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 5.5 better than Qwen3.5-2B?

Claude Opus 5.5 has enough public results to be ranked (#3); Qwen3.5-2B does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 5.5 and Qwen3.5-2B share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 5.5 has 35 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-2B has 1.

Related comparisons

Go deeper