Side-by-side benchmark comparison across agentic, coding, multimodal, knowledge, reasoning, and math workflows.
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking
57
1/8 categoriesQwen3.6 Plus
69
Winner · 5/8 categoriesClaude 4.1 Opus Thinking· Qwen3.6 Plus
Pick Qwen3.6 Plus if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking only becomes the better choice if reasoning is the priority.
Qwen3.6 Plus is clearly ahead on the aggregate, 69 to 57. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Qwen3.6 Plus's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 64.9 against 45.7. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Pro, 29% to 56.6%. Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking does hit back in reasoning, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Qwen3.6 Plus gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking.
BenchLM keeps the benchmark table and the operator tradeoffs on the same page so a better score does not hide a materially slower, pricier, or smaller-context model.
Runtime metrics show N/A when BenchLM does not have a sourced snapshot for that exact model. The scoring rules and freshness policy are documented on the methodology page.
| Benchmark | Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| AgenticQwen3.6 Plus wins | ||
| BrowseComp | 54% | — |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0 | — | 61.6% |
| Claw-Eval | — | 58.7% |
| QwenClawBench | — | 57.2% |
| QwenWebBench | — | 1502 |
| TAU3-Bench | — | 70.7% |
| VITA-Bench | — | 44.3% |
| DeepPlanning | — | 41.5% |
| Toolathlon | — | 39.8% |
| MCP Atlas | — | 48.2% |
| MCP-Tasks | — | 74.1% |
| WideResearch | — | 74.3% |
| OSWorld-Verified | — | 62.5% |
| CodingQwen3.6 Plus wins | ||
| SWE-bench Verified | 74.5% | 78.8% |
| LiveCodeBench | 45% | — |
| SWE-bench Pro | 29% | 56.6% |
| SWE Multilingual | — | 73.8% |
| LiveCodeBench v6 | — | 87.1% |
| NL2Repo | — | 37.9% |
| Multimodal & GroundedQwen3.6 Plus wins | ||
| OfficeQA Pro | 69% | — |
| MMMU | — | 86.0% |
| MMMU-Pro | — | 78.8% |
| RealWorldQA | — | 85.4% |
| OmniDocBench 1.5 | — | 91.2% |
| Video-MME (with subtitle) | — | 87.8% |
| Video-MME (w/o subtitle) | — | 84.2% |
| MathVision | — | 88.0% |
| We-Math | — | 89.0% |
| DynaMath | — | 88.0% |
| MStar | — | 83.3% |
| SimpleVQA | — | 67.3% |
| ChatCVQA | — | 81.5% |
| MMLongBench-Doc | — | 62.0% |
| CC-OCR | — | 83.4% |
| AI2D_TEST | — | 94.4% |
| CountBench | — | 97.6% |
| RefCOCO (avg) | — | 93.5% |
| ODINW13 | — | 51.8% |
| ERQA | — | 65.7% |
| VideoMMMU | — | 84.0% |
| MLVU (M-Avg) | — | 86.7% |
| ScreenSpot Pro | — | 68.2% |
| ReasoningClaude 4.1 Opus Thinking wins | ||
| MuSR | 72% | — |
| MRCRv2 | 74% | — |
| AI-Needle | — | 68.3% |
| LongBench v2 | — | 62% |
| KnowledgeQwen3.6 Plus wins | ||
| MMLU | 76% | — |
| GPQA | 80.9% | 90.4% |
| SuperGPQA | 72% | 71.6% |
| MMLU-Pro | 76% | 88.5% |
| HLE | 8% | 28.8% |
| FrontierScience | 41% | — |
| SimpleQA | 36% | — |
| MMLU-Redux | — | 94.5% |
| C-Eval | — | 93.3% |
| Instruction Following | ||
| IFEval | — | 94.3% |
| IFBench | — | 74.2% |
| MultilingualQwen3.6 Plus wins | ||
| MGSM | 82% | — |
| MMLU-ProX | 73% | 84.7% |
| NOVA-63 | — | 57.9% |
| INCLUDE | — | 85.1% |
| PolyMath | — | 77.4% |
| VWT2k-lite | — | 84.3% |
| MAXIFE | — | 88.2% |
| Mathematics | ||
| AIME 2024 | 40% | — |
| HMMT Feb 2024 | 36% | — |
| HMMT Feb 2025 | 35% | — |
| AIME26 | — | 95.3% |
| HMMT Feb 2025 | — | 96.7% |
| HMMT Nov 2025 | — | 94.6% |
| HMMT Feb 2026 | — | 87.8% |
| MMAnswerBench | — | 83.8% |
Qwen3.6 Plus is ahead overall, 69 to 57. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Pro, where the scores are 29% and 56.6%.
Qwen3.6 Plus has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 66 versus 49. Inside this category, HLE is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Qwen3.6 Plus has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 64.9 versus 45.7. Inside this category, SWE-bench Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking has the edge for reasoning in this comparison, averaging 73.1 versus 62. Qwen3.6 Plus stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Qwen3.6 Plus has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 62 versus 54. Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Qwen3.6 Plus has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 78.8 versus 69. Claude 4.1 Opus Thinking stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Qwen3.6 Plus has the edge for multilingual tasks in this comparison, averaging 84.7 versus 76.2. Inside this category, MMLU-ProX is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Get notified when new models drop, benchmark scores change, or the leaderboard shifts. One email per week.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime. We only store derived location metadata for consent routing.