Model A

Anthropic

63.91/100

Supported · Public rank #46

90% interval 49.9–77.9

Claude Opus 4.5 vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

Updated August 29, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Model B

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

Alibaba

51.55/100

Estimated · Public rank #122

90% interval 40.0–63.1

Decision reading

Claude Opus 4.5 has the higher public score estimate, 63.91 versus 51.55, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.

27 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

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
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented

Show secondary and unsupported calls

Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are 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. Qwen3.6-35B-A3B 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.

18 Claude Opus 4.5 only

27 Shared

14 Qwen3.6-35B-A3B only

Shared results: 27
Claude Opus 4.5 only: 18
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B only: 14
Like-for-like categories: 2 / 8

3 categories use different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.

Knowledge

Like-for-like

Claude Opus 4.5: 58.1
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B: 51.4
Weighted basis: 4 vs 4 rows
Reading: Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Multimodal

Like-for-like

Claude Opus 4.5: 69.9
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B: 76.3
Weighted basis: 2 vs 2 rows
Reading: Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads

Agentic

Directional only

Claude Opus 4.5: 62.6
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B: 51.5
Weighted basis: 2 vs 1 rows
Reading: Directional only

Coding

Directional only

Claude Opus 4.5: 71.7
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B: 73.8
Weighted basis: 2 vs 3 rows
Reading: Directional only

Math

Directional only

Claude Opus 4.5: 57.5
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B: 88.2
Weighted basis: 4 vs 2 rows
Reading: Directional only

Reasoning

Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.5: 64.4
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B: Not measured
Weighted basis: 1 vs 0 rows
Reading: Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.5: 85.7
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B: Not measured
Weighted basis: 1 vs 0 rows
Reading: Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.5: 69.5
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B: Not measured
Weighted basis: 2 vs 0 rows
Reading: Not comparable

Category averages with the server-provided evidence basis for Claude Opus 4.5 and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
Category	Claude Opus 4.5	Qwen3.6-35B-A3B	Weighted basis	Reading
Knowledge	58.1	51.4	Like-for-like4 vs 4 rows	Claude Opus 4.5 leads
Multimodal	69.9	76.3	Like-for-like2 vs 2 rows	Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads
Agentic	62.6	51.5	Directional only2 vs 1 rows	Directional only
Coding	71.7	73.8	Directional only2 vs 3 rows	Directional only
Math	57.5	88.2	Directional only4 vs 2 rows	Directional only
Reasoning	64.4	Not measured	Not comparable1 vs 0 rows	Not comparable
Multilingual	85.7	Not measured	Not comparable1 vs 0 rows	Not comparable
Instruction following	69.5	Not measured	Not comparable2 vs 0 rows	Not comparable

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
Claude Opus 4.5: 68.5%Qwen3.6-35B-A3B: 78%Normalized gap 9.5Claude Opus 4.5 source Qwen3.6-35B-A3B source
HLE
Knowledge
Claude Opus 4.5: 30.8%Qwen3.6-35B-A3B: 21.4%Normalized gap 9.4Claude Opus 4.5 source Qwen3.6-35B-A3B source
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Agentic
Claude Opus 4.5: 59.3%Qwen3.6-35B-A3B: 51.5%Normalized gap 7.8Claude Opus 4.5 source Qwen3.6-35B-A3B source
SWE-bench Pro
Coding
Claude Opus 4.5: 57.1%Qwen3.6-35B-A3B: 49.5%Normalized gap 7.6Claude Opus 4.5 source Qwen3.6-35B-A3B source
SWE-bench Verified
Coding
Claude Opus 4.5: 80.9%Qwen3.6-35B-A3B: 73.4%Normalized gap 7.5Claude Opus 4.5 source Qwen3.6-35B-A3B source

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
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B: API rate not published; Fits in one request

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B 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
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B: API rate not published; Fits in one request

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B 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
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B: API rate not published; 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. Qwen3.6-35B-A3B 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 4.5Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

Claude Opus 4.5

200K

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

262K

API model ID

Claude Opus 4.5

Not sourced

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

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

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

No comparable hosted API rate

Documented inputs

Claude Opus 4.5

Not sourced

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Claude Opus 4.5

Not sourced

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

Not sourced

Provider availability

Claude Opus 4.5

Not sourced

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Claude Opus 4.5

Non-Reasoning

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

Reasoning

Weight access

Claude Opus 4.5

Proprietary

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

Open Weight

License

Claude Opus 4.5

Proprietary

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

Open Weight

Release date

Claude Opus 4.5

2025-11-01

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

2026-04-15

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, 63.91 versus 51.55, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
Workload cost: A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff: Qwen3.6-35B-A3B has the larger documented window (262K).

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 evidence59 rows

Agentic

Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Opus 4.559.3%
Source
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B51.5%
Source
Claude Opus 4.5 leads this result
OSWorld-Verified
Claude Opus 4.566.3%
Source
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B—
Not directly comparable
OSWorld
Claude Opus 4.566.3%
Source
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B—
Not directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Claude Opus 4.559.6%
Source
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B68.7%
Source
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads this result
QwenClawBench
Claude Opus 4.552.3%
Source
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B52.6%
Source
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads this result
τ³-bench results
Claude Opus 4.570.2%
Source
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B67.2%
Source
Claude Opus 4.5 leads this result
VITA-Bench
Claude Opus 4.523.3%
Source
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B35.6%
Source
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads this result
DeepPlanning
Claude Opus 4.526.4%
Source
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B25.9%
Source
Claude Opus 4.5 leads this result
Toolathlon
Claude Opus 4.543.5%
Source
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B26.9%
Source
Claude Opus 4.5 leads this result
MCP Atlas
Claude Opus 4.542.3%
Source
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B62.8%
Source
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads this result
MCP-Tasks
Claude Opus 4.571.8%
Source
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B—
Not directly comparable
WideResearch
Claude Opus 4.576.4%
Source
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B60.1%
Source
Claude Opus 4.5 leads this result
CyberGym
Claude Opus 4.550.6%
Source
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B—
Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
Shared source
Claude Opus 4.564.23%
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B42.65%
Claude Opus 4.5 leads this result
JobBench
Claude Opus 4.532.3%
Source
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B—
Not directly comparable
QwenWebBench
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B1397
Source
Not directly comparable

Coding

SWE-bench Verified
Claude Opus 4.580.9%
Source
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B73.4%
Source
Claude Opus 4.5 leads this result
LiveCodeBench v6
Claude Opus 4.584.8%
Source
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B—
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Claude Opus 4.557.1%
Source
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B49.5%
Source
Claude Opus 4.5 leads this result
SWE Multilingual
Claude Opus 4.577.5%
Source
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B67.2%
Source
Claude Opus 4.5 leads this result
NL2Repo
Claude Opus 4.543.2%
Source
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B29.4%
Source
Claude Opus 4.5 leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B51.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B80.4%
Source
Not directly comparable

Reasoning

LongBench v2
Claude Opus 4.564.4%
Source
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B—
Not directly comparable
AI-Needle
Claude Opus 4.574%
Source
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B—
Not directly comparable

Knowledge

GPQA
Claude Opus 4.587%
Source
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B86%
Source
Claude Opus 4.5 leads this result
SuperGPQA
Claude Opus 4.570.6%
Source
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B64.7%
Source
Claude Opus 4.5 leads this result
MMLU-Pro
Claude Opus 4.589.5%
Source
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B85.2%
Source
Claude Opus 4.5 leads this result
MMLU-Redux
Claude Opus 4.596.6%
Source
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B—
Not directly comparable
C-Eval
Claude Opus 4.592.2%
Source
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B90%
Source
Claude Opus 4.5 leads this result
HLE
Claude Opus 4.530.8%
Source
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B21.4%
Source
Claude Opus 4.5 leads this result

Math

AIME26
Claude Opus 4.595.1%
Source
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B92.7%
Source
Claude Opus 4.5 leads this result
HMMT Feb 2025
Claude Opus 4.592.9%
Source
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B90.7%
Source
Claude Opus 4.5 leads this result
HMMT Nov 2025
Claude Opus 4.593.3%
Source
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B89.1%
Source
Claude Opus 4.5 leads this result
HMMT Feb 2026
Claude Opus 4.585.3%
Source
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B83.6%
Source
Claude Opus 4.5 leads this result
MMAnswerBench
Claude Opus 4.584.0%
Source
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B78.9%
Source
Claude Opus 4.5 leads this result
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Claude Opus 4.520.690%
Source
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B—
Not directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
Claude Opus 4.54.167%
Source
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B—
Not directly comparable

Multilingual

MMLU-ProX
Claude Opus 4.585.7%
Source
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B—
Not directly comparable
NOVA-63
Claude Opus 4.556.7%
Source
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B—
Not directly comparable

Multimodal

MMMU-Pro
Claude Opus 4.570.6%
Source
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B75.3%
Source
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads this result
MathVision
Claude Opus 4.574.3%
Source
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B—
Not directly comparable
CharXiv
Claude Opus 4.568.5%
Source
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B78%
Source
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads this result
VideoMMMU
Claude Opus 4.584.4%
Source
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B83.7%
Source
Claude Opus 4.5 leads this result
ScreenSpot Pro
Claude Opus 4.545.7%
Source
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B—
Not directly comparable
V*
Claude Opus 4.567.0%
Source
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B—
Not directly comparable
MMMU
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B81.7%
Source
Not directly comparable
RealWorldQA
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B85.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
OmniDocBench 1.5
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B89.9%
Source
Not directly comparable
SimpleVQA
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B58.9%
Source
Not directly comparable
CC-OCR
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B81.9%
Source
Not directly comparable
AI2D_TEST
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B92.7%
Source
Not directly comparable
RefCOCO (avg)
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B92.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
ODINW13
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B50.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
Video-MME (with subtitle)
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B86.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
Video-MME (w/o subtitle)
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B82.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
MLVU (M-Avg)
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B86.2%
Source
Not directly comparable

Instruction following

IFEval
Claude Opus 4.590.9%
Source
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B—
Not directly comparable
IFBench
Claude Opus 4.558%
Source
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B—
Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.5 or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?

Claude Opus 4.5 has the higher public score estimate, 63.91 versus 51.55, 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 Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?

The current coding averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so BenchLM does not name a winner from them. Read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.5 or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?

The current agentic tasks averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so BenchLM does not name a winner from them. Read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which costs less, Claude Opus 4.5 or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?

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 Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B has the larger documented context window: 262K, compared with 200K.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated August 29, 2026

Watch Claude Opus 4.5 vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.

Claude Opus 4.5 vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

Which one for your work

Long documents

Coding work

Agentic work

Chat turn cost

Cache-heavy agent loop cost

Repository review cost

What is actually comparable

Category results, on a stated basis

Knowledge

Multimodal

Agentic

Coding

Math

Reasoning

Multilingual

Instruction following

Shape of the matched evidence

What each workload costs

Chat turn

Repository review

Cache-heavy agent loop

Specification differences

Context window

API model ID

Cached-input rate

Documented inputs

Documented outputs

Provider availability

Reasoning profile

Weight access

License

Release date

Benchmark evidence

Agentic

Coding

Reasoning

Knowledge

Math

Multilingual

Multimodal

Instruction following

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.5 or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?

Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.5 or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.5 or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?

Which costs less, Claude Opus 4.5 or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?

Which has the larger context window, Claude Opus 4.5 or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?

Related comparisons

Watch Claude Opus 4.5 vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B