Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking vs Qwen3.5-27B

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 12 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

57.44/100
Margin
3.3pts
winning →
60.7/100
0 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking #69 (Estimated); Qwen3.5-27B #45 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking and Qwen3.5-27B share 12 comparable benchmark results. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 4 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking; 16 to Qwen3.5-27B.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
12
Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking only
4
Qwen3.5-27B only
16
Comparable categories
0 / 8

Benchmark data for Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking and Qwen3.5-27B is coming soon on BenchLM.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 12 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.

Qwen3.5-27B has the larger context window at 262K, compared with 200K for Claude Opus 4.5 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 scores and score margins for Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking and Qwen3.5-27B
CategoryClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingΔQwen3.5-27B
AgenticClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.5-27B52.0
CodingClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.5-27B64.9
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.5-27B60.6
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.5-27B82.7
MultilingualClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.5-27B82.2
Inst. FollowingClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.5-27B95.0

Operational comparison

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

MetricClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingQwen3.5-27BComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot availableQwen3.5-27B$0 input / $0 outputA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot availableQwen3.5-27BNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot availableQwen3.5-27BNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.5 Thinking200KQwen3.5-27B262KQwen3.5-27B lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingQwen3.5-27BResult
τ²-bench resultsSource 89.5%93.9%Qwen3.5-27B leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —41.6%Not comparable
BrowseCompSource —61%Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource —56.2%Not comparable
Gert LabsSource —39.41%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingQwen3.5-27BResult
Vibe Code BenchSource 20.63%—Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 49.5%39.5%Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking leads
SWE-bench VerifiedSource —72.4%Not comparable
SWE-RebenchSource —58.9%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingQwen3.5-27BResult
AA-LCRSource 74.0%67.3%Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking leads
CritPtSource 4.6%0.9%Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking leads
LongBench v2Source —60.6%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingQwen3.5-27BResult
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 40.8%33.8%Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 86.6%85.8%Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking leads
AA-HLESource 28.4%22.2%Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 13.3%-42.0%Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 45.7%21.0%Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 59.8%79.7%Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking leads
AA MMLU-ProSource 89.5%—Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource —86.1%Not comparable
SuperGPQASource —65.6%Not comparable
GPQASource —85.5%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingQwen3.5-27BResult
AA Global-MMLU-LiteSource 91.3%—Not comparable
MMLU-ProXSource —82.2%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingQwen3.5-27BResult
AA-MMMU-ProSource 74.0%75.0%Qwen3.5-27B leads
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1277—Not comparable
MMMUSource —82.3%Not comparable
MMVUSource —73.3%Not comparable
MathVisionSource —86.0%Not comparable
V*Source —93.7%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingQwen3.5-27BResult
AA-IFBenchSource 58.0%75.6%Qwen3.5-27B leads
IFEvalSource —95%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Can I compare Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking and Qwen3.5-27B 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 Qwen3.5-27B today?

Qwen3.5-27B: $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

Explore More

Anthropic Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 23, 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.