Model comparison
Claude Opus 5 vs Qwen3.5-Flash
Claude Opus 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 67.8 to 42.5 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5-Flash costs 57× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 29 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 29 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 5 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen3.5-Flash in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Claude Opus 5 leads 86.2 to 37.4.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3): 85.6% for Claude Opus 5 and 18.2% for Qwen3.5-Flash.
- Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 5.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3.5-Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 67.8 | 42.5 |
| Released | 2026-07-24 | 2026-02-23 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1M | 1M |
| Max output | 128K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $5 | $0.10 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $25 | $0.40 |
| Results tracked | 57 | 32 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 67.5 (#5), Qwen3.5-Flash: 34.2 (#242)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1691 | 1244 |
| LMArena Coding | 1534 | 1412 |
| ALE-Bench | 2,165 | 221.8 |
| DeepSWE | 73.6% | — |
| FrontierCode | 53.4% | — |
| CursorBench | 46.6% | — |
| FrontierSWE | 52% | — |
| SciCode | 56.4% | — |
| WeirdML | 91.8% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Opus 5: 55.6 (#1), Qwen3.5-Flash: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | 11,182 | 462.69 |
| APEX-Agents | 65.8% | — |
| OSWorld 2.0 | 31.4% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 48.7% | — |
| PostTrainBench | 35% | — |
| BALROG | 63.4% | — |
| GBAEval | 79.6% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 24% | — |
Reasoning Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 77.2 (#4), Qwen3.5-Flash: 33.7 (#72)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 42% | 21% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1526 | 1403 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 59% | 20% |
| DTBench | 97.9% | 82.9% |
| LMCA | 64.5% | 29.1% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 162.78 | 143.98 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 90.4% | — |
| SimpleBench | 80.6% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 94.3% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | — |
| CritPt | 29.1% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 45.7% | — |
| Bench to the Future 3 | 0.12 | — |
Math Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 86.2 (#8), Qwen3.5-Flash: 37.4 (#158)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 85.6% | 18.2% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 98.9% | 84.4% |
| LMArena Math | 1531 | 1407 |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 73.2% | — |
| ProofBench | 99% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 6.2% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 0% |
Knowledge Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 66.8 (#9), Qwen3.5-Flash: 43.2 (#93)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 93.9% | 82.3% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 59.9% | 20.3% |
| LMArena Expert | 1557 | 1407 |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 10.5% |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Opus 5: 50.8 (#8), Qwen3.5-Flash: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1319 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 30.4% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 60.8% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1516 | — |
Multilingual Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 58.8 (#4), Qwen3.5-Flash: 50.5 (#121)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1501 | 1385 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1574 | 1446 |
| LMArena French | 1519 | 1412 |
| LMArena German | 1524 | 1390 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1516 | 1368 |
| LMArena Korean | 1521 | 1344 |
| LMArena Russian | 1507 | 1379 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1519 | 1400 |
Instruction Following Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 79.2 (#7), Qwen3.5-Flash: 72.6 (#139)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1517 | 1374 |
Long Context Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 46.5 (#21), Qwen3.5-Flash: 42.4 (#124)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1515 | 1392 |
Writing & Preference Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 79.2 (#1), Qwen3.5-Flash: 57.9 (#122)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1507 | 1397 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1491 | 1343 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1499 | 1393 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2133 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1385 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 5 better than Qwen3.5-Flash?
Claude Opus 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 67.8 to 42.5 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5-Flash costs 57× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 5 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 5 lists at $5 and $25.
Is Claude Opus 5 or Qwen3.5-Flash better for coding?
Claude Opus 5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 67.5 versus 34.2 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Both accept 1M tokens.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 5 and Qwen3.5-Flash share?
29 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 5 has 57 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-Flash has 32.