# Claude 2.1 vs Qwen3.5-Flash

> Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.3 to 24.9 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/claude-2-1-vs-qwen3-5-flash
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 4

## Summary

- They share 4 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude 2.1 scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.5-Flash in 4 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.5-Flash leads 43.2 to 15.5.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 1.9% for Claude 2.1 and 84.4% for Qwen3.5-Flash.

## Snapshot

| | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 24.9 | 42.3 |
| Rank | 340 | 105 |
| Context | — | 1M |
| Input $/M | — | $0.10 |
| Output $/M | — | $0.40 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |

## Coding

- Claude 2.1: 25.8 (#322)
- Qwen3.5-Flash: 33.9 (#234)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1243 |
| WeirdML | 7.1% | — |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1412 |
| ALE-Bench | — | 221.8 |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Claude 2.1: —
- Qwen3.5-Flash: —

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 462.69 |

## Reasoning

- Claude 2.1: 20.6 (#216)
- Qwen3.5-Flash: 32.9 (#63)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| DTBench | 51% | 82.9% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 119.22 | 143.98 |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 21% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1404 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 20% |
| LMCA | — | 29.1% |
| ForecastBench | 54.2 | — |

## Math

- Claude 2.1: 9.6 (#309)
- Qwen3.5-Flash: 36.3 (#117)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 1.9% | 84.4% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 18.2% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1407 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 6.2% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 0% |

## Knowledge

- Claude 2.1: 15.5 (#287)
- Qwen3.5-Flash: 43.2 (#84)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 33% | 82.3% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 20.3% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 10.5% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1408 |
| MMLU | 73.5% | — |

## Multilingual

- Claude 2.1: —
- Qwen3.5-Flash: 50.7 (#116)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1385 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1446 |
| LMArena French | — | 1412 |
| LMArena German | — | 1389 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1369 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1344 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1379 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1399 |

## Instruction Following

- Claude 2.1: —
- Qwen3.5-Flash: 72.8 (#133)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1374 |

## Long Context

- Claude 2.1: —
- Qwen3.5-Flash: 42.4 (#119)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1392 |

## Writing & Preference

- Claude 2.1: —
- Qwen3.5-Flash: 58.2 (#117)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1397 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1343 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1393 |

## FAQ

### Is Claude 2.1 better than Qwen3.5-Flash?

Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.3 to 24.9 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Claude 2.1 or Qwen3.5-Flash better for coding?

Qwen3.5-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 33.9 versus 25.8 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Claude 2.1 and Qwen3.5-Flash share?

4 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude 2.1 has 7 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-Flash has 32.