Model comparison
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
Head-to-head evidence from 10 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking unranked; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B #31
BenchAlign evidence: Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking supported; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B estimated. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B share 10 comparable benchmark results. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 0 results are unique to Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking; 48 to Qwen3.6-35B-A3B.
Updated July 15, 2026- Shared results
- 10
- Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking only
- 0
- Qwen3.6-35B-A3B only
- 48
- Comparable categories
- 0 / 8
Benchmark data for Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B is coming soon on BenchLM.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 10 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 0 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
BenchLM has partial data for these models, but not enough overlapping benchmark coverage to produce a fair score-level comparison yet.
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B has the larger context window at 262K, compared with 200K for Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking | Δ | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Claude 4.1 Opus ThinkingNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B51.5 |
| Coding | Claude 4.1 Opus ThinkingNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B73.8 |
| Knowledge | Claude 4.1 Opus ThinkingNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B51.8 |
| Math | Claude 4.1 Opus ThinkingNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B88.2 |
| Multimodal | Claude 4.1 Opus ThinkingNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B76.3 |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude 4.1 Opus ThinkingNot available | Qwen3.6-35B-A3BNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking29 tok/s | Qwen3.6-35B-A3BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking15.00 s | Qwen3.6-35B-A3BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking200K | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B262K | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic15 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 71.4% | 95.3% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 51.5% | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 68.7% | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 52.6% | Not comparable |
| QwenWebBenchSource | — | 1397 | Not comparable |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | — | 67.2% | Not comparable |
| VITA-BenchSource | — | 35.6% | Not comparable |
| DeepPlanningSource | — | 25.9% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 26.9% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 62.8% | Not comparable |
| WideResearchSource | — | 60.1% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 21.4% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 27.4% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1049 | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 42.65% | Not comparable |
Coding9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | 34.3% | 34.8% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 40.9% | 35.8% | Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking leads |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 73.4% | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | — | 67.2% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 49.5% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 51.5% | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBenchSource | — | 80.4% | Not comparable |
| NL2RepoSource | — | 29.4% | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 41.9% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 33.7% | 31.6% | Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 80.9% | 84.1% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| AA-HLESource | 11.9% | 20.2% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 85.2% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 64.7% | Not comparable |
| C-EvalSource | — | 90% | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | — | 86% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 21.4% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | -21.4% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 18.9% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 49.7% | Not comparable |
Math5 benchmarks
Multimodal15 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 67.9% | 75.0% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| MMMUSource | — | 81.7% | Not comparable |
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 75.3% | Not comparable |
| RealWorldQASource | — | 85.3% | Not comparable |
| OmniDocBench 1.5Source | — | 89.9% | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 78% | Not comparable |
| SimpleVQASource | — | 58.9% | Not comparable |
| CC-OCRSource | — | 81.9% | Not comparable |
| AI2D_TESTSource | — | 92.7% | Not comparable |
| RefCOCO (avg)Source | — | 92.0% | Not comparable |
| ODINW13Source | — | 50.8% | Not comparable |
| Video-MME (with subtitle)Source | — | 86.6% | Not comparable |
| Video-MME (w/o subtitle)Source | — | 82.5% | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | — | 83.7% | Not comparable |
| MLVU (M-Avg)Source | — | 86.2% | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 55.4% | 64.4% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Can I compare Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B on BenchLM yet?
Not fully yet. BenchLM is tracking both models, but the sourced benchmark breakdown for this comparison is still coming soon.
Why does this comparison show “coming soon”?
BenchLM only shows category winners and benchmark-level calls when we have sourced results that can be compared fairly. For these models, the public benchmark coverage is not complete enough yet.
What data is available for Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B today?
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking: Pricing unavailable Both model pages still include creator, context window, reasoning mode, and other metadata while benchmark coverage fills in.
Related Comparisons
The AI models change fast. We track them for you.
A weekly brief for engineers and researchers covering new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.