# Claude Opus 4.5 vs Qwen3.6 Max Preview

> Qwen3.6 Max Preview is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.5 to 50.5 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/claude-opus-4-5-vs-qwen3-6-max-preview
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 29

## Summary

- They share 29 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.5 scores higher in 6 categories and Qwen3.6 Max Preview in 2 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads 54.1 to 38.6.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 52.5% for Claude Opus 4.5 and 74.1% 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 4.5.
- Qwen3.6 Max Preview accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 200K.

## Snapshot

| | Claude Opus 4.5 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 50.5 | 51.5 |
| Rank | 47 | 43 |
| Context | 200K | 262K |
| Input $/M | $5 | $1.30 |
| Output $/M | $25 | $7.80 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |

## Coding

- Claude Opus 4.5: 54.8 (#27)
- Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 48.7 (#54)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | 76.7% | 76.7% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1494 | 1482 |
| LMArena Coding | 1504 | 1471 |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 76.8% | — |
| SWE-bench Multilingual | 70.7% | — |
| GSO | 26.5% | — |
| WeirdML | 63.7% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 1,025 | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.77 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Claude Opus 4.5: 47.3 (#12)
- Qwen3.6 Max Preview: —

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | 4,967 | 4,254 |
| Terminal-Bench | 63.1% | — |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 77.5% | — |
| GDPval | 45.5% | — |
| Remote Labor Index | 3.8% | — |
| τ²-bench Airline | 84% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 24.7% | — |
| τ²-bench Retail | 79.6% | — |
| τ²-bench Telecom | 92.3% | — |
| Cybench | 82% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 54.8% | — |
| OSWorld | 66.3% | — |
| BALROG | 43.5% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1180 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 75% | — |

## Reasoning

- Claude Opus 4.5: 42.6 (#51)
- Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 41.7 (#53)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleBench | 62% | 63% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 52.5% | 74.1% |
| Chess Puzzles | 12% | 20% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1476 | 1457 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 22% | 19% |
| DTBench | 89.9% | 87.2% |
| LMCA | 44.5% | 42.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 150.09 | 149.24 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 37.6% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 80.2% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 80% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 11.9% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 14.3% | — |
| ForecastBench | 60.7 | — |

## Math

- Claude Opus 4.5: 38.6 (#132)
- Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 54.1 (#46)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 86.1% | 91.1% |
| LMArena Math | 1463 | 1465 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 20.7% | 23.1% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | 4.2% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 34.4% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 4.9% | — |
| ProofBench | 36% | — |

## Knowledge

- Claude Opus 4.5: 56.5 (#44)
- Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 57.6 (#39)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 86% | 87.4% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 45.7% | 52% |
| LMArena Expert | 1487 | 1478 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 25.2% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 10.9% | — |

## Multimodal

- Claude Opus 4.5: 31.4 (#107)
- Qwen3.6 Max Preview: —

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| GeoBench | 75% | — |
| VPCT | 40% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 28.3% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1462 | — |

## Multilingual

- Claude Opus 4.5: 54.3 (#47)
- Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 54.2 (#48)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1438 | 1437 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1470 | 1487 |
| LMArena French | 1471 | 1449 |
| LMArena Russian | 1447 | 1445 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1458 | 1454 |
| LMArena German | 1449 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1416 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1424 | — |

## Instruction Following

- Claude Opus 4.5: 77.5 (#19)
- Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 75.7 (#55)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1478 | 1438 |

## Long Context

- Claude Opus 4.5: 46.5 (#22)
- Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 44.6 (#61)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1480 | 1457 |
| CL-bench | 21.1% | — |

## Writing & Preference

- Claude Opus 4.5: 68.1 (#28)
- Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 63.8 (#60)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1451 | 1447 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1445 | 1435 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1466 | 1456 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1687 | — |

## FAQ

### Is Claude Opus 4.5 better than Qwen3.6 Max Preview?

Qwen3.6 Max Preview is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.5 to 50.5 on the Noometry Index.

### Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.5 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 4.5 lists at $5 and $25.

### Is Claude Opus 4.5 or Qwen3.6 Max Preview better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 54.8 versus 48.7 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.6 Max Preview does, with 262K tokens against 200K.

### How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.5 and Qwen3.6 Max Preview share?

29 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.5 has 69 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Max Preview has 29.