Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.5 vs Qwen3 235B 2507

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 4 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

64.22/100
Margin
8.2pts
← winning
56.02/100
1 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.5 #34 (Supported); 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 and Qwen3 235B 2507 share 4 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 55 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.5; 0 to Qwen3 235B 2507.

Updated July 20, 2026
Shared results
4
Claude Opus 4.5 only
55
Qwen3 235B 2507 only
0
Comparable categories
2 / 8

Pick Claude Opus 4.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3 235B 2507 only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 4 shared benchmark results across 2 evidence categories; 2 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

Claude Opus 4.5 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 64.22 to 56.02. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Claude Opus 4.5's sharpest advantage is in multilingual, where it averages 85.7 against 79.4. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 87% to 77.5%. Qwen3 235B 2507 does hit back in knowledge, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

Claude Opus 4.5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Qwen3 235B 2507. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Claude Opus 4.5 gives you the larger context window at 200K, compared with 128K for Qwen3 235B 2507.

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 and Qwen3 235B 2507
CategoryClaude Opus 4.5ΔQwen3 235B 2507
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.558.1Margin→ 20.8Qwen3 235B 250778.9
MultilingualClaude Opus 4.585.7Margin← 6.3Qwen3 235B 250779.4
AgenticClaude Opus 4.562.6MarginNo overlapQwen3 235B 2507Not measured
CodingClaude Opus 4.571.7MarginNo overlapQwen3 235B 2507Not measured
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.564.4MarginNo overlapQwen3 235B 2507Not measured
MathClaude Opus 4.557.5MarginNo overlapQwen3 235B 2507Not measured
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.569.9MarginNo overlapQwen3 235B 2507Not measured
Inst. FollowingClaude Opus 4.569.5MarginNo overlapQwen3 235B 2507Not measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Claude Opus 4.5B · Qwen3 235B 2507

  1. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 87%B 77.5%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.5Δ 9.5
    GPQA: Claude Opus 4.5 scored 87%; Qwen3 235B 2507 scored 77.5%. Claude Opus 4.5 wins this benchmark.

  2. SuperGPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 70.6%B 62.6%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.5Δ 8
    SuperGPQA: Claude Opus 4.5 scored 70.6%; Qwen3 235B 2507 scored 62.6%. Claude Opus 4.5 wins this benchmark.

  3. MMLU-Pro

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 89.5%B 83%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.5Δ 6.5
    MMLU-Pro: Claude Opus 4.5 scored 89.5%; Qwen3 235B 2507 scored 83%. Claude Opus 4.5 wins this benchmark.

  4. MMLU-ProX

    Multilingual
    Source ↗
    A 85.7%B 79.4%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.5Δ 6.3
    MMLU-ProX: Claude Opus 4.5 scored 85.7%; Qwen3 235B 2507 scored 79.4%. Claude Opus 4.5 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricClaude Opus 4.5Qwen3 235B 2507Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.5$5 input / $25 outputQwen3 235B 2507$0 input / $0 outputQwen3 235B 2507 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.546 tok/sQwen3 235B 2507Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.51.01 sQwen3 235B 2507Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.5200KQwen3 235B 2507128KClaude Opus 4.5 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen3 235B 2507Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 59.3%—Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 66.3%—Not comparable
OSWorldSource 66.3%—Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource 59.6%—Not comparable
QwenClawBenchSource 52.3%—Not comparable
τ³-bench resultsSource 70.2%—Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource 23.3%—Not comparable
DeepPlanningSource 26.4%—Not comparable
ToolathlonSource 43.5%—Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource 42.3%—Not comparable
MCP-TasksSource 71.8%—Not comparable
WideResearchSource 76.4%—Not comparable
CyberGymSource 50.6%—Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 86.3%—Not comparable
Gert LabsSource 64.23%—Not comparable
JobBenchSource 32.3%—Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen3 235B 2507Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 80.9%—Not comparable
LiveCodeBench v6Source 84.8%—Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 57.1%—Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource 77.5%—Not comparable
NL2RepoSource 43.2%—Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 47.0%—Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen3 235B 2507Result
LongBench v2Source 64.4%—Not comparable
AI-NeedleSource 74%—Not comparable
AA-LCRSource 65.3%—Not comparable
CritPtSource 0.3%—Not comparable
KnowledgeQwen3 235B 2507 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen3 235B 2507Result
GPQASource 87%77.5%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
SuperGPQASource 70.6%62.6%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
MMLU-ProSource 89.5%83%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
MMLU-ReduxSource 96.6%—Not comparable
C-EvalSource 92.2%—Not comparable
HLESource 30.8%—Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 34.7%—Not comparable
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 81.0%—Not comparable
AA-HLESource 12.9%—Not comparable
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -3.9%—Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 40.7%—Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 75.4%—Not comparable
AA MMLU-ProSource 88.9%—Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen3 235B 2507Result
AIME26Source 95.1%—Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2025Source 92.9%—Not comparable
HMMT Nov 2025Source 93.3%—Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2026Source 85.3%—Not comparable
MMAnswerBenchSource 84.0%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 20.690%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 4.167%—Not comparable
MultilingualClaude Opus 4.5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen3 235B 2507Result
MMLU-ProXSource 85.7%79.4%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
NOVA-63Source 56.7%—Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen3 235B 2507Result
MMMU-ProSource 70.6%—Not comparable
MathVisionSource 74.3%—Not comparable
CharXivSource 68.5%—Not comparable
VideoMMMUSource 84.4%—Not comparable
ScreenSpot ProSource 45.7%—Not comparable
V*Source 67.0%—Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 71.2%—Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1279—Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen3 235B 2507Result
IFEvalSource 90.9%—Not comparable
IFBenchSource 58%—Not comparable
AA-IFBenchSource 43.0%—Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.5 or Qwen3 235B 2507?

Claude Opus 4.5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 64.22 to 56.02. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 87% and 77.5%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 4.5 or Qwen3 235B 2507?

Qwen3 235B 2507 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 78.9 versus 58.1. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for multilingual tasks, Claude Opus 4.5 or Qwen3 235B 2507?

Claude Opus 4.5 has the edge for multilingual tasks in this comparison, averaging 85.7 versus 79.4. Inside this category, MMLU-ProX 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 20, 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.