# Claude Opus 5 vs Qwen3 Max

> Claude Opus 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 67.8 to 43.7 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3 Max costs 4.2× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

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

## Summary

- They share 29 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 5 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen3 Max in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Opus 5 leads 77.2 to 22.6.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3): 85.6% for Claude Opus 5 and 18.9% for Qwen3 Max.
- Qwen3 Max is cheaper at $1.20 / $6 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 5.
- Claude Opus 5 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 262K.

## Snapshot

| | Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3 Max |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 67.8 | 43.7 |
| Rank | 4 | 87 |
| Context | 1M | 262K |
| Input $/M | $5 | $1.20 |
| Output $/M | $25 | $6 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |

## Coding

- Claude Opus 5: 67.5 (#5)
- Qwen3 Max: 43.0 (#93)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1534 | 1456 |
| ALE-Bench | 2,165 | 370.45 |
| DeepSWE | 73.6% | — |
| FrontierCode | 53.4% | — |
| CursorBench | 46.6% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1691 | — |
| FrontierSWE | 52% | — |
| SciCode | 56.4% | — |
| WeirdML | 91.8% | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Claude Opus 5: 55.6 (#1)
- Qwen3 Max: —

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3 Max |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | 11,182 | 71.56 |
| 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: 77.2 (#4)
- Qwen3 Max: 22.6 (#190)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3 Max |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 94.3% | 30.1% |
| Chess Puzzles | 42% | 4% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1526 | 1448 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 59% | 5% |
| DTBench | 97.9% | 82.1% |
| LMCA | 64.5% | 28.3% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 162.78 | 142.38 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 90.4% | — |
| SimpleBench | 80.6% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 72.5% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | — |
| CritPt | 29.1% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 45.7% | — |
| Bench to the Future 3 | 0.12 | — |

## Math

- Claude Opus 5: 86.2 (#8)
- Qwen3 Max: 38.7 (#131)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3 Max |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 85.6% | 18.9% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 98.9% | 73.3% |
| LMArena Math | 1531 | 1446 |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 73.2% | — |
| ProofBench | 99% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 97.1% |

## Knowledge

- Claude Opus 5: 66.8 (#9)
- Qwen3 Max: 48.1 (#78)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3 Max |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 93.9% | 72.6% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 59.9% | 48.7% |
| LMArena Expert | 1557 | 1455 |

## Multimodal

- Claude Opus 5: 50.8 (#8)
- Qwen3 Max: —

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1319 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 30.4% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 60.8% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1516 | — |

## Multilingual

- Claude Opus 5: 58.8 (#4)
- Qwen3 Max: 53.7 (#62)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1501 | 1429 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1574 | 1478 |
| LMArena French | 1519 | 1449 |
| LMArena German | 1524 | 1463 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1516 | 1397 |
| LMArena Korean | 1521 | 1399 |
| LMArena Russian | 1507 | 1428 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1519 | 1462 |

## Instruction Following

- Claude Opus 5: 79.2 (#7)
- Qwen3 Max: 74.8 (#87)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1517 | 1419 |

## Long Context

- Claude Opus 5: 46.5 (#21)
- Qwen3 Max: 41.6 (#134)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1515 | 1438 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 66.7% |
| CL-bench | — | 14.5% |

## Writing & Preference

- Claude Opus 5: 79.2 (#1)
- Qwen3 Max: 62.4 (#76)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1507 | 1439 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1491 | 1402 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1499 | 1446 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2133 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1385 | — |

## FAQ

### Is Claude Opus 5 better than Qwen3 Max?

Claude Opus 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 67.8 to 43.7 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3 Max costs 4.2× 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 Max?

Qwen3 Max is cheaper. It lists at $1.20 per million input tokens and $6 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 5 lists at $5 and $25.

### Is Claude Opus 5 or Qwen3 Max better for coding?

Claude Opus 5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 67.5 versus 43.0 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 Max share?

29 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 5 has 57 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 Max has 33.