Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude 4.1 Opus vs Qwen3.5 397B

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 2 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

45.88/100
Margin
11.1pts
winning →
57.01/100
1 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude 4.1 Opus #142 (Supported); Qwen3.5 397B #71 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude 4.1 Opus and Qwen3.5 397B share 2 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 2 results are unique to Claude 4.1 Opus; 53 to Qwen3.5 397B.

Updated July 22, 2026
Shared results
2
Claude 4.1 Opus only
2
Qwen3.5 397B only
53
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Pick Qwen3.5 397B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude 4.1 Opus only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you need the larger 200K context window.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 2 shared benchmark results across 2 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

Qwen3.5 397B is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 57.01 to 45.88. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Claude 4.1 Opus is also the more expensive model on tokens at $15.00 input / $75.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.60 input / $3.60 output per 1M tokens for Qwen3.5 397B. That is roughly 20.8x on output cost alone. Claude 4.1 Opus gives you the larger context window at 200K, compared with 128K for Qwen3.5 397B.

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 scores and score margins for Claude 4.1 Opus and Qwen3.5 397B
CategoryClaude 4.1 OpusΔQwen3.5 397B
CodingClaude 4.1 Opus74.5Margin← 8.0Qwen3.5 397B66.5
AgenticClaude 4.1 OpusNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.5 397B56.5
ReasoningClaude 4.1 OpusNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.5 397B63.2
KnowledgeClaude 4.1 OpusNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.5 397B56.6
MathClaude 4.1 OpusNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.5 397B90.6
MultilingualClaude 4.1 OpusNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.5 397B84.7
MultimodalClaude 4.1 OpusNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.5 397B79.6
Inst. FollowingClaude 4.1 OpusNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.5 397B92.6

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Claude 4.1 OpusB · Qwen3.5 397B

  1. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 74.5%B 76.2%
    Winner: Qwen3.5 397BΔ 1.7
    SWE-bench Verified: Claude 4.1 Opus scored 74.5%; Qwen3.5 397B scored 76.2%. Qwen3.5 397B wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricClaude 4.1 OpusQwen3.5 397BComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude 4.1 Opus$15 input / $75 outputQwen3.5 397B$0.6 input / $3.6 outputQwen3.5 397B has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude 4.1 Opus29 tok/sQwen3.5 397B96 tok/sQwen3.5 397B has the higher measured throughput.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude 4.1 Opus1.66 sQwen3.5 397B2.44 sClaude 4.1 Opus reaches the first token sooner.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude 4.1 Opus200KQwen3.5 397B128KClaude 4.1 Opus lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude 4.1 OpusQwen3.5 397BResult
JobBenchSource 21.9%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —52.5%Not comparable
BrowseCompSource —62%Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource —56.8%Not comparable
QwenClawBenchSource —51.8%Not comparable
τ³-bench resultsSource —68.4%Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource —43.7%Not comparable
DeepPlanningSource —37.6%Not comparable
ToolathlonSource —36.3%Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource —46.1%Not comparable
MCP-TasksSource —74.2%Not comparable
WideResearchSource —74.0%Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource —95.6%Not comparable
Gert LabsSource —46.76%Not comparable
ResearchClawBenchSource —14.2%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource —19.9%Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource —15.3%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —23.1%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —962Not comparable
CodingClaude 4.1 Opus wins
BenchmarkClaude 4.1 OpusQwen3.5 397BResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 74.5%76.2%Qwen3.5 397B leads
LiveCodeBench v6Source —83.6%Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource —50.9%Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource —42.0%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource —48.2%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude 4.1 OpusQwen3.5 397BResult
LongBench v2Source —63.2%Not comparable
AI-NeedleSource —68.7%Not comparable
AA-LCRSource —65.7%Not comparable
CritPtSource —1.7%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude 4.1 OpusQwen3.5 397BResult
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 28.2%33.7%Qwen3.5 397B leads
GPQASource —88.4%Not comparable
SuperGPQASource —70.4%Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource —87.8%Not comparable
MMLU-ReduxSource —94.9%Not comparable
C-EvalSource —93%Not comparable
HLESource —28.7%Not comparable
AA-GPQA DiamondSource —89.3%Not comparable
AA-HLESource —27.3%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience IndexSource —-29.8%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource —31.4%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource —89.1%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkClaude 4.1 OpusQwen3.5 397BResult
AIME26Source —93.3%Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2025Source —94.8%Not comparable
HMMT Nov 2025Source —92.7%Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2026Source —87.9%Not comparable
MMAnswerBenchSource —80.9%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkClaude 4.1 OpusQwen3.5 397BResult
MMLU-ProXSource —84.7%Not comparable
NOVA-63Source —59.1%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude 4.1 OpusQwen3.5 397BResult
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1207—Not comparable
MMMU-ProSource —79%Not comparable
MathVisionSource —88.6%Not comparable
CharXivSource —80.8%Not comparable
VideoMMMUSource —84.7%Not comparable
ScreenSpot ProSource —65.6%Not comparable
V*Source —95.8%Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource —77.3%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude 4.1 OpusQwen3.5 397BResult
IFEvalSource —92.6%Not comparable
AA-IFBenchSource —78.8%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, Claude 4.1 Opus or Qwen3.5 397B?

Qwen3.5 397B is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 57.01 to 45.88. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 74.5% and 76.2%.

Which is better for coding, Claude 4.1 Opus or Qwen3.5 397B?

Claude 4.1 Opus has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 74.5 versus 66.5. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Anthropic Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 22, 2026

Choose a model with this week’s evidence

Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.

One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.