Coding
Like-for-like- Claude Opus 4.5
- 55.1
- Supported · #42/183
- Qwen3.6-27B
- 42.6
- Supported · #128/183
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 5 vs 6 public rows
- Reading
- Claude Opus 4.5 leads · intervals overlap
Claude Opus 4.5 vs Qwen3.6-27B
Updated September 4, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
Claude Opus 4.5 has the higher public score estimate, 60.25 versus 52.73, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.
23 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.
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Claude Opus 4.5
Claude Opus 4.5 leads on the public coding lane, 55.1 to 42.6, with Supported evidence for both models, although the 90% intervals overlap.
Confidence: limited
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Qwen3.6-27B
Qwen3.6-27B has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Claude Opus 4.5 is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
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 Opus 4.5 does not fit this workload in one request. Claude Opus 4.5 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Qwen3.6-27B has no comparable published API token rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
22 Claude Opus 4.5 only
23 Shared
15 Qwen3.6-27B only
- Shared results
- 23
- Claude Opus 4.5 only
- 22
- Qwen3.6-27B only
- 15
- Like-for-like categories
- 2 / 8
3 categories rest 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.
Multimodal
Like-for-like- Claude Opus 4.5
- 23.4
- #46/48
- Qwen3.6-27B
- 51.5
- #35/48
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 2 vs 2 weighted rows
- Reading
- Qwen3.6-27B leads
Agentic
Directional only- Claude Opus 4.5
- 44.5
- Estimated · #101/151
- Qwen3.6-27B
- 33.9
- Supported · #133/151
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 15 vs 6 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Knowledge
Directional only- Claude Opus 4.5
- 55.4
- Estimated · #60/181
- Qwen3.6-27B
- 49.0
- Estimated · #95/181
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 6 vs 6 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Instruction following
Directional only- Claude Opus 4.5
- 39.5
- #103/120
- Qwen3.6-27B
- 82.2
- #50/120
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.5
- 72.1
- Unranked · 4 rankable rows
- Qwen3.6-27B
- 73.7
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.5
- 58.3
- #6/7
- Qwen3.6-27B
- 72.8
- Unranked · 5 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 4 vs 2 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.5
- 82.9
- #2/12
- Qwen3.6-27B
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude Opus 4.5 | Qwen3.6-27B | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 55.1Supported · #42/183 | 42.6Supported · #128/183 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign lane · 5 vs 6 public rows | Claude Opus 4.5 leads · intervals overlap |
| Multimodal | 23.4#46/48 | 51.5#35/48 | Like-for-likeProvisional lane · 2 vs 2 weighted rows | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| Agentic | 44.5Estimated · #101/151 | 33.9Supported · #133/151 | Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 15 vs 6 public rows | Directional only |
| Knowledge | 55.4Estimated · #60/181 | 49.0Estimated · #95/181 | Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 6 vs 6 public rows | Directional only |
| Instruction following | 39.5#103/120 | 82.2#50/120 | Directional onlyProvisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | 72.1Unranked · 4 rankable rows | 73.7Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 58.3#6/7 | 72.8Unranked · 5 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 4 vs 2 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | 82.9#2/12 | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 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.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
CharXiv
Multimodal
HLE
Knowledge
SWE Multilingual
Coding
MMMU-Pro
Multimodal
SuperGPQA
Knowledge
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 Opus 4.5
- $0.0175
- Fits in one request
- Qwen3.6-27B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
Qwen3.6-27B has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Claude Opus 4.5
- $0.325
- Fits in one request
- Qwen3.6-27B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
Qwen3.6-27B has no comparable published API token rate.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Claude Opus 4.5
- $1.35
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
- Qwen3.6-27B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
Claude Opus 4.5 does not fit this workload in one request. Claude Opus 4.5 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Qwen3.6-27B has no comparable published API token rate.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationClaude Opus 4.5Qwen3.6-27B
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude Opus 4.5
200K
Qwen3.6-27B
262K
API model ID
Claude Opus 4.5
Not sourced
Qwen3.6-27B
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Claude Opus 4.5
Not published
Qwen3.6-27B
No comparable hosted API rate
Documented inputs
Claude Opus 4.5
Not sourced
Qwen3.6-27B
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Claude Opus 4.5
Not sourced
Qwen3.6-27B
Not sourced
Provider availability
Claude Opus 4.5
Not sourced
Qwen3.6-27B
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Claude Opus 4.5
Non-Reasoning
Qwen3.6-27B
Reasoning
Weight access
Claude Opus 4.5
Proprietary
Qwen3.6-27B
Open Weight
License
Claude Opus 4.5
Proprietary
Qwen3.6-27B
Open Weight
Release date
Claude Opus 4.5
2025-11-01
Qwen3.6-27B
2026-04-21
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
- Claude Opus 4.5 has the higher public score estimate, 60.25 versus 52.73, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- Qwen3.6-27B has the larger documented window (262K).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
Claude Opus 4.5
API / mo$22,500
Self-host / moNot listed
Break-even—
Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.
Qwen3.6-27B
API / mo$0
Self-host / mo$429
Break-even—
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence60 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Opus 4.559.3%SourceQwen3.6-27B59.3%SourceTie
OSWorld-Verified
Claude Opus 4.566.3%SourceQwen3.6-27B—Not directly comparable
OSWorld
Claude Opus 4.566.3%SourceQwen3.6-27B—Not directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Claude Opus 4.559.6%SourceQwen3.6-27B72.4%SourceQwen3.6-27B leads this result
QwenClawBench
Claude Opus 4.552.3%SourceQwen3.6-27B53.4%SourceQwen3.6-27B leads this result
τ³-bench results
Claude Opus 4.570.2%SourceQwen3.6-27B—Not directly comparable
VITA-Bench
Claude Opus 4.523.3%SourceQwen3.6-27B—Not directly comparable
DeepPlanning
Claude Opus 4.526.4%SourceQwen3.6-27B—Not directly comparable
Toolathlon
Claude Opus 4.543.5%SourceQwen3.6-27B—Not directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Claude Opus 4.542.3%SourceQwen3.6-27B—Not directly comparable
MCP-Tasks
Claude Opus 4.571.8%SourceQwen3.6-27B—Not directly comparable
WideResearch
Claude Opus 4.576.4%SourceQwen3.6-27B—Not directly comparable
CyberGym
Claude Opus 4.550.6%SourceQwen3.6-27B—Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
Shared sourceClaude Opus 4.564.23%Qwen3.6-27B54.84%Claude Opus 4.5 leads this result
JobBench
Claude Opus 4.532.3%SourceQwen3.6-27B—Not directly comparable
QwenWebBench
Claude Opus 4.5—Qwen3.6-27B1487SourceNot directly comparable
AndroidWorld
Claude Opus 4.5—Qwen3.6-27B70.3%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Claude Opus 4.580.9%SourceQwen3.6-27B77.2%SourceClaude Opus 4.5 leads this result
LiveCodeBench v6
Claude Opus 4.584.8%SourceQwen3.6-27B—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Claude Opus 4.557.1%SourceQwen3.6-27B53.5%SourceClaude Opus 4.5 leads this result
SWE Multilingual
Claude Opus 4.577.5%SourceQwen3.6-27B71.3%SourceClaude Opus 4.5 leads this result
NL2Repo
Claude Opus 4.543.2%SourceQwen3.6-27B36.2%SourceClaude Opus 4.5 leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Opus 4.5—Qwen3.6-27B59.3%SourceNot directly comparable
LiveCodeBench
Claude Opus 4.5—Qwen3.6-27B83.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
Knowledge
GPQA
Claude Opus 4.587%SourceQwen3.6-27B87.8%SourceQwen3.6-27B leads this result
SuperGPQA
Claude Opus 4.570.6%SourceQwen3.6-27B66%SourceClaude Opus 4.5 leads this result
MMLU-Pro
Claude Opus 4.589.5%SourceQwen3.6-27B86.2%SourceClaude Opus 4.5 leads this result
MMLU-Redux
Claude Opus 4.596.6%SourceQwen3.6-27B93.5%SourceClaude Opus 4.5 leads this result
C-Eval
Claude Opus 4.592.2%SourceQwen3.6-27B91.4%SourceClaude Opus 4.5 leads this result
HLE
Claude Opus 4.530.8%SourceQwen3.6-27B24%SourceClaude Opus 4.5 leads this result
Math
AIME26
Claude Opus 4.595.1%SourceQwen3.6-27B94.1%SourceClaude Opus 4.5 leads this result
HMMT Feb 2025
Claude Opus 4.592.9%SourceQwen3.6-27B93.8%SourceQwen3.6-27B leads this result
HMMT Nov 2025
Claude Opus 4.593.3%SourceQwen3.6-27B90.7%SourceClaude Opus 4.5 leads this result
HMMT Feb 2026
Claude Opus 4.585.3%SourceQwen3.6-27B84.3%SourceClaude Opus 4.5 leads this result
MMAnswerBench
Claude Opus 4.584.0%SourceQwen3.6-27B80.8%SourceClaude Opus 4.5 leads this result
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Claude Opus 4.520.690%SourceQwen3.6-27B—Not directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
Claude Opus 4.54.167%SourceQwen3.6-27B—Not directly comparable
Multilingual
Multimodal
MMMU-Pro
Claude Opus 4.570.6%SourceQwen3.6-27B75.8%SourceQwen3.6-27B leads this result
MathVision
Claude Opus 4.574.3%SourceQwen3.6-27B—Not directly comparable
CharXiv
Claude Opus 4.568.5%SourceQwen3.6-27B78.4%SourceQwen3.6-27B leads this result
VideoMMMU
Claude Opus 4.584.4%SourceQwen3.6-27B84.4%SourceTie
ScreenSpot Pro
Claude Opus 4.545.7%SourceQwen3.6-27B—Not directly comparable
V*
Claude Opus 4.567.0%SourceQwen3.6-27B94.7%SourceQwen3.6-27B leads this result
MMMU
Claude Opus 4.5—Qwen3.6-27B82.9%SourceNot directly comparable
RealWorldQA
Claude Opus 4.5—Qwen3.6-27B84.1%SourceNot directly comparable
DynaMath
Claude Opus 4.5—Qwen3.6-27B85.6%SourceNot directly comparable
MStar
Claude Opus 4.5—Qwen3.6-27B81.4%SourceNot directly comparable
SimpleVQA
Claude Opus 4.5—Qwen3.6-27B56.1%SourceNot directly comparable
CC-OCR
Claude Opus 4.5—Qwen3.6-27B81.2%SourceNot directly comparable
CountBench
Claude Opus 4.5—Qwen3.6-27B97.8%SourceNot directly comparable
RefCOCO (avg)
Claude Opus 4.5—Qwen3.6-27B92.5%SourceNot directly comparable
ERQA
Claude Opus 4.5—Qwen3.6-27B62.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Video-MME (with subtitle)
Claude Opus 4.5—Qwen3.6-27B87.7%SourceNot directly comparable
MLVU (M-Avg)
Claude Opus 4.5—Qwen3.6-27B86.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Instruction following
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.5 or Qwen3.6-27B?
Claude Opus 4.5 has the higher public score estimate, 60.25 versus 52.73, 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 Opus 4.5 or Qwen3.6-27B?
Claude Opus 4.5 leads the public coding lane, 55.1 to 42.6, with Supported evidence for both models, although the 90% intervals overlap.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.5 or Qwen3.6-27B?
Claude Opus 4.5 scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 44.5 to 33.9. Claude Opus 4.5 is 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 Opus 4.5 or Qwen3.6-27B?
Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.
Which has the larger context window, Claude Opus 4.5 or Qwen3.6-27B?
Qwen3.6-27B has the larger documented context window: 262K, compared with 200K.
Related comparisons
Last updated September 4, 2026
Watch Claude Opus 4.5 vs Qwen3.6-27B
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.