Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

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

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 40 shared benchmark results across 7 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

64.13/100
Margin
12.8pts
← winning
51.36/100
2 category wins3 category wins

Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.5 #19; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B #31

BenchAlign evidence: Claude Opus 4.5 supported; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B estimated. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.5 and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B share 40 comparable benchmark results. 5 of 8 categories are comparable. 20 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.5; 18 to Qwen3.6-35B-A3B.

Updated July 15, 2026
Shared results
40
Claude Opus 4.5 only
20
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B only
18
Comparable categories
5 / 8

Pick Claude Opus 4.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.6-35B-A3B only becomes the better choice if mathematics is the priority or you need the larger 262K context window.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 40 shared benchmark results across 7 evidence categories; 5 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 provisional aggregate, 71 to 59. 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 agentic, where it averages 62.6 against 51.5. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is CharXiv, 68.5% to 78%. Qwen3.6-35B-A3B does hit back in mathematics, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude Opus 4.5 is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. Qwen3.6-35B-A3B gives you the larger context window at 262K, compared with 200K for Claude Opus 4.5.

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 Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
CategoryClaude Opus 4.5ΔQwen3.6-35B-A3B
MathClaude Opus 4.557.5Margin→ 30.7Qwen3.6-35B-A3B88.2
AgenticClaude Opus 4.562.6Margin← 11.1Qwen3.6-35B-A3B51.5
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.558.5Margin← 6.7Qwen3.6-35B-A3B51.8
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.569.9Margin→ 6.4Qwen3.6-35B-A3B76.3
CodingClaude Opus 4.571.7Margin→ 2.1Qwen3.6-35B-A3B73.8
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.564.4MarginNo overlapQwen3.6-35B-A3BNot measured
MultilingualClaude Opus 4.585.7MarginNo overlapQwen3.6-35B-A3BNot measured
Inst. FollowingClaude Opus 4.569.5MarginNo overlapQwen3.6-35B-A3BNot measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Claude Opus 4.5B · Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

  1. CharXiv

    Multimodal
    Source ↗
    A 68.5%B 78%
    Winner: Qwen3.6-35B-A3BΔ 9.5
    CharXiv: Claude Opus 4.5 scored 68.5%; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B scored 78%. Qwen3.6-35B-A3B wins this benchmark.

  2. HLE

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 30.8%B 21.4%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.5Δ 9.4
    HLE: Claude Opus 4.5 scored 30.8%; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B scored 21.4%. Claude Opus 4.5 wins this benchmark.

  3. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 59.3%B 51.5%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.5Δ 7.8
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Opus 4.5 scored 59.3%; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B scored 51.5%. Claude Opus 4.5 wins this benchmark.

  4. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 57.1%B 49.5%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.5Δ 7.6
    SWE-bench Pro: Claude Opus 4.5 scored 57.1%; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B scored 49.5%. Claude Opus 4.5 wins this benchmark.

  5. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 80.9%B 73.4%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.5Δ 7.5
    SWE-bench Verified: Claude Opus 4.5 scored 80.9%; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B scored 73.4%. 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 4.5Qwen3.6-35B-A3BComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.5$5 input / $25 outputQwen3.6-35B-A3BNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.546 tok/sQwen3.6-35B-A3BNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.51.01 sQwen3.6-35B-A3BNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.5200KQwen3.6-35B-A3B262KQwen3.6-35B-A3B lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticClaude Opus 4.5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen3.6-35B-A3BResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 59.3%51.5%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 66.3%—Not comparable
OSWorldSource 66.3%—Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource 59.6%68.7%Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads
QwenClawBenchSource 52.3%52.6%Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads
τ³-bench resultsSource 70.2%67.2%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
VITA-BenchSource 23.3%35.6%Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads
DeepPlanningSource 26.4%25.9%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
ToolathlonSource 43.5%26.9%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
MCP AtlasSource 42.3%62.8%Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads
MCP-TasksSource 71.8%—Not comparable
WideResearchSource 76.4%60.1%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
CyberGymSource 50.6%—Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 86.3%95.3%Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads
Gert LabsSource 64.23%42.65%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
JobBenchSource 32.3%—Not comparable
QwenWebBenchSource —1397Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource —21.4%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —27.4%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —1049Not comparable
CodingQwen3.6-35B-A3B wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen3.6-35B-A3BResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 80.9%73.4%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
LiveCodeBench v6Source 84.8%—Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 57.1%49.5%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
SWE MultilingualSource 77.5%67.2%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
NL2RepoSource 43.2%29.4%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
Terminal-Bench HardSource 40.9%34.8%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
AA-SciCodeSource 47.0%35.8%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —51.5%Not comparable
LiveCodeBenchSource —80.4%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource —41.9%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen3.6-35B-A3BResult
LongBench v2Source 64.4%—Not comparable
AI-NeedleSource 74%—Not comparable
AA-LCRSource 65.3%63.7%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
CritPtSource 0.3%0.3%Tie
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen3.6-35B-A3BResult
GPQASource 87%86%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
SuperGPQASource 70.6%64.7%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
MMLU-ProSource 89.5%85.2%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
MMLU-ReduxSource 96.6%—Not comparable
C-EvalSource 92.2%90%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
HLESource 30.8%21.4%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 34.7%31.6%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 81.0%84.1%Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads
AA-HLESource 12.9%20.2%Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -3.9%-21.4%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 40.7%18.9%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 75.4%49.7%Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads
AA MMLU-ProSource 88.9%—Not comparable
MathQwen3.6-35B-A3B wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen3.6-35B-A3BResult
AIME26Source 95.1%92.7%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
HMMT Feb 2025Source 92.9%90.7%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
HMMT Nov 2025Source 93.3%89.1%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
HMMT Feb 2026Source 85.3%83.6%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
MMAnswerBenchSource 84.0%78.9%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 20.690%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 4.167%—Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen3.6-35B-A3BResult
MMLU-ProXSource 85.7%—Not comparable
NOVA-63Source 56.7%—Not comparable
MultimodalQwen3.6-35B-A3B wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen3.6-35B-A3BResult
MMMU-ProSource 70.6%75.3%Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads
MathVisionSource 74.3%—Not comparable
CharXivSource 68.5%78%Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads
VideoMMMUSource 84.4%83.7%Claude Opus 4.5 leads
ScreenSpot ProSource 45.7%—Not comparable
V*Source 67.0%—Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 71.2%75.0%Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1281—Not comparable
MMMUSource —81.7%Not comparable
RealWorldQASource —85.3%Not comparable
OmniDocBench 1.5Source —89.9%Not comparable
SimpleVQASource —58.9%Not comparable
CC-OCRSource —81.9%Not comparable
AI2D_TESTSource —92.7%Not comparable
RefCOCO (avg)Source —92.0%Not comparable
ODINW13Source —50.8%Not comparable
Video-MME (with subtitle)Source —86.6%Not comparable
Video-MME (w/o subtitle)Source —82.5%Not comparable
MLVU (M-Avg)Source —86.2%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen3.6-35B-A3BResult
IFEvalSource 90.9%—Not comparable
IFBenchSource 58%—Not comparable
AA-IFBenchSource 43.0%64.4%Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads
Frequently Asked Questions (6)

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

Claude Opus 4.5 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 71 to 59. The biggest single separator in this matchup is CharXiv, where the scores are 68.5% and 78%.

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

Claude Opus 4.5 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 58.5 versus 51.8. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

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

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 73.8 versus 71.7. Inside this category, NL2Repo is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

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

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 88.2 versus 57.5. Inside this category, MMAnswerBench is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

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

Claude Opus 4.5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 62.6 versus 51.5. Inside this category, Gert Labs is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

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

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 76.3 versus 69.9. Inside this category, CharXiv 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 15, 2026

The AI models change fast. We track them for you.

A weekly brief for engineers and researchers covering new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.

Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.