Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking vs Qwen3 235B 2507
Head-to-head evidence from 0 shared benchmark results across 0 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking #69 (Estimated); Qwen3 235B 2507 #78 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking and Qwen3 235B 2507 share 0 comparable benchmark results. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 16 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking; 4 to Qwen3 235B 2507.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 0
- Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking only
- 16
- Qwen3 235B 2507 only
- 4
- Comparable categories
- 0 / 8
Benchmark data for Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking and Qwen3 235B 2507 is coming soon on BenchLM.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 0 shared benchmark results across 0 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.
Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking has the larger context window at 200K, compared with 128K for Qwen3 235B 2507.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking | Qwen3 235B 2507 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot available | Qwen3 235B 2507$0 input / $0 output | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot available | Qwen3 235B 2507Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot available | Qwen3 235B 2507Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking200K | Qwen3 235B 2507128K | Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking | Qwen3 235B 2507 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 89.5% | — | Not comparable |
Coding2 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking | Qwen3 235B 2507 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 40.8% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 86.6% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | 28.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 13.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 45.7% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 59.8% | — | Not comparable |
| AA MMLU-ProSource | 89.5% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | — | 77.5% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 62.6% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 83% | Not comparable |
Multilingual2 benchmarks
Multimodal2 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking | Qwen3 235B 2507 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 58.0% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Can I compare Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking and Qwen3 235B 2507 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 Opus 4.5 Thinking and Qwen3 235B 2507 today?
Qwen3 235B 2507: $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens Both model pages still include creator, context window, reasoning mode, and other metadata while benchmark coverage fills in.
Related Comparisons
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.