Agentic
Directional only- Claude 4.1 Opus
- 43.0
- Estimated · #103/152
- Qwen3.5 Plus
- 48.6
- Estimated · #66/152
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 1 vs 1 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Claude 4.1 Opus vs Qwen3.5 Plus
Updated September 10, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
Qwen3.5 Plus has the higher public score estimate, 50.39 versus 42.01, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.
1 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Share or export
Which one for your work
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Qwen3.5 Plus
Qwen3.5 Plus has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Qwen3.5 Plus
Qwen3.5 Plus has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Qwen3.5 Plus
Qwen3.5 Plus has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
Qwen3.5 Plus is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Claude 4.1 Opus and Qwen3.5 Plus are scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. Claude 4.1 Opus does not fit this workload in one request. Claude 4.1 Opus has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Qwen3.5 Plus has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
1 Claude 4.1 Opus only
1 Shared
3 Qwen3.5 Plus only
- Shared results
- 1
- Claude 4.1 Opus only
- 1
- Qwen3.5 Plus only
- 3
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
1 category rests on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.
Coding
Not comparable- Claude 4.1 Opus
- 43.0
- Estimated · #103/151
- Qwen3.5 Plus
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 1 vs 1 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude 4.1 Opus
- Not ranked
- Qwen3.5 Plus
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Claude 4.1 Opus
- Not ranked
- Qwen3.5 Plus
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 0 vs 0 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Claude 4.1 Opus
- Not ranked
- Qwen3.5 Plus
- 39.5
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude 4.1 Opus
- Not ranked
- Qwen3.5 Plus
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Claude 4.1 Opus
- Not ranked
- Qwen3.5 Plus
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Claude 4.1 Opus
- Not ranked
- Qwen3.5 Plus
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude 4.1 Opus | Qwen3.5 Plus | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 43.0Estimated · #103/152 | 48.6Estimated · #66/152 | Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 1 vs 1 public rows | Directional only |
| Coding | 43.0Estimated · #103/151 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign lane · 1 vs 1 public rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign lane · 0 vs 0 public rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not ranked | 39.5Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
Shape of the matched evidence
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
A shared-evidence shape is not available.
BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- Claude 4.1 Opus
- $0.0525
- Fits in one request
- Qwen3.5 Plus
- $0.0016
- Fits in one request
Qwen3.5 Plus has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Claude 4.1 Opus
- $0.975
- Fits in one request
- Qwen3.5 Plus
- $0.0272
- Fits in one request
Qwen3.5 Plus has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Claude 4.1 Opus
- $4.05
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
- Qwen3.5 Plus
- $0.112
- Fits in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Claude 4.1 Opus does not fit this workload in one request. Claude 4.1 Opus has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Qwen3.5 Plus has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationClaude 4.1 OpusQwen3.5 Plus
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude 4.1 Opus
200K
Qwen3.5 Plus
1M
API model ID
Claude 4.1 Opus
Not sourced
Qwen3.5 Plus
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Claude 4.1 Opus
Not published
Qwen3.5 Plus
Not published
Documented inputs
Claude 4.1 Opus
Not sourced
Qwen3.5 Plus
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Claude 4.1 Opus
Not sourced
Qwen3.5 Plus
Not sourced
Provider availability
Claude 4.1 Opus
Not sourced
Qwen3.5 Plus
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Claude 4.1 Opus
Non-Reasoning
Qwen3.5 Plus
Reasoning
Weight access
Claude 4.1 Opus
Proprietary
Qwen3.5 Plus
Proprietary
License
Claude 4.1 Opus
Proprietary
Qwen3.5 Plus
Proprietary
Release date
Claude 4.1 Opus
2025-08-01
Qwen3.5 Plus
2026-03-04
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
- Quality signal
- Qwen3.5 Plus has the higher public score estimate, 50.39 versus 42.01, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.975 vs $0.0272. Cache-heavy agent loop: $4.05 vs $0.112.
- Context tradeoff
- Qwen3.5 Plus has the larger documented window (1M).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence5 rows
Agentic
JobBench
Shared sourceClaude 4.1 Opus21.9%Qwen3.5 Plus18.5%Claude 4.1 Opus leads this result
Coding
Math
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Claude 4.1 Opus or Qwen3.5 Plus?
Qwen3.5 Plus has the higher public score estimate, 50.39 versus 42.01, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.
Which is better for coding, Claude 4.1 Opus or Qwen3.5 Plus?
Qwen3.5 Plus is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude 4.1 Opus or Qwen3.5 Plus?
Qwen3.5 Plus scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 48.6 to 43. Claude 4.1 Opus and Qwen3.5 Plus are scored on Estimated evidence for agentic tasks, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for agentic tasks from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which costs less, Claude 4.1 Opus or Qwen3.5 Plus?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.0525 on Claude 4.1 Opus and $0.0016 on Qwen3.5 Plus; repository review costs $0.975 and $0.0272; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $4.05 and $0.112. Claude 4.1 Opus does not fit this workload in one request. Claude 4.1 Opus has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Qwen3.5 Plus has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Which has the larger context window, Claude 4.1 Opus or Qwen3.5 Plus?
Qwen3.5 Plus has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 200K.
Related comparisons
Last updated September 10, 2026
Watch Claude 4.1 Opus vs Qwen3.5 Plus
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.