Model comparison
Claude Opus 5 vs Qwen3.6 Max Preview
Claude Opus 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 67.8 to 51.5 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.6 Max Preview costs 3.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 26 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 26 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 5 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen3.6 Max Preview in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Opus 5 leads 77.2 to 41.7.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is Mystery Game Puzzles: 59% for Claude Opus 5 and 19% for Qwen3.6 Max Preview.
- Qwen3.6 Max Preview is cheaper at $1.30 / $7.80 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 5.
- Claude Opus 5 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 262K.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 67.8 | 51.5 |
| Released | 2026-07-24 | 2026-04-20 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1M | 262K |
| Max output | 128K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $5 | $1.30 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $25 | $7.80 |
| Results tracked | 57 | 29 |
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), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 48.7 (#54)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1691 | 1482 |
| LMArena Coding | 1534 | 1471 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 76.7% |
| DeepSWE | 73.6% | — |
| FrontierCode | 53.4% | — |
| CursorBench | 46.6% | — |
| FrontierSWE | 52% | — |
| SciCode | 56.4% | — |
| WeirdML | 91.8% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 2,165 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Opus 5: 55.6 (#1), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | 11,182 | 4,254 |
| 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), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 41.7 (#53)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleBench | 80.6% | 63% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 94.3% | 74.1% |
| Chess Puzzles | 42% | 20% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1526 | 1457 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 59% | 19% |
| DTBench | 97.9% | 87.2% |
| LMCA | 64.5% | 42.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 162.78 | 149.24 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 90.4% | — |
| 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), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 54.1 (#46)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 98.9% | 91.1% |
| LMArena Math | 1531 | 1465 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 85.6% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 73.2% | — |
| ProofBench | 99% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 23.1% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 4.2% |
Knowledge Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 66.8 (#9), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 57.6 (#39)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 93.9% | 87.4% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 59.9% | 52% |
| LMArena Expert | 1557 | 1478 |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Opus 5: 50.8 (#8), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| 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), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 54.2 (#48)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1501 | 1437 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1574 | 1487 |
| LMArena French | 1519 | 1449 |
| LMArena Russian | 1507 | 1445 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1519 | 1454 |
| LMArena German | 1524 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1516 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1521 | — |
Instruction Following Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 79.2 (#7), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 75.7 (#55)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1517 | 1438 |
Long Context Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 46.5 (#21), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 44.6 (#61)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1515 | 1457 |
Writing & Preference Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 79.2 (#1), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 63.8 (#60)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1507 | 1447 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1491 | 1435 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1499 | 1456 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2133 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1385 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 5 better than Qwen3.6 Max Preview?
Claude Opus 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 67.8 to 51.5 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.6 Max Preview costs 3.4× 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 Qwen3.6 Max Preview?
Qwen3.6 Max Preview is cheaper. It lists at $1.30 per million input tokens and $7.80 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 5 lists at $5 and $25.
Is Claude Opus 5 or Qwen3.6 Max Preview better for coding?
Claude Opus 5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 67.5 versus 48.7 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Claude Opus 5 does, with 1M tokens against 262K.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 5 and Qwen3.6 Max Preview share?
26 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 5 has 57 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Max Preview has 29.