Head-to-head comparison across 7benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Claude Opus 4.5
77
Qwen3.6 Plus
73
Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.5 #10 · Qwen3.6 Plus #11
Pick Claude Opus 4.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.6 Plus only becomes the better choice if multimodal & grounded is the priority or you need the larger 1M context window.
Agentic
+0.9 difference
Coding
+1.1 difference
Reasoning
+2.4 difference
Knowledge
+0.2 difference
Multilingual
+1.0 difference
Multimodal
+9.6 difference
Inst. Following
+8.4 difference
Claude Opus 4.5
Qwen3.6 Plus
$5 / $25
$null / $null
46 t/s
N/A
1.01s
N/A
200K
1M
Pick Claude Opus 4.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.6 Plus only becomes the better choice if multimodal & grounded is the priority or you need the larger 1M context window.
Claude Opus 4.5 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 77 to 73. 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 reasoning, where it averages 64.4 against 62. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is IFBench, 58% to 75.8%. Qwen3.6 Plus does hit back in multimodal & grounded, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Qwen3.6 Plus 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 Plus gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for Claude Opus 4.5.
Claude Opus 4.5 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 77 to 73. The biggest single separator in this matchup is IFBench, where the scores are 58% and 75.8%.
Claude Opus 4.5 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 66.2 versus 66. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Claude Opus 4.5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 65.9 versus 64.8. Inside this category, SWE Multilingual is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Claude Opus 4.5 has the edge for reasoning in this comparison, averaging 64.4 versus 62. Inside this category, AI-Needle is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Claude Opus 4.5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 62.5 versus 61.6. Inside this category, VITA-Bench is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Qwen3.6 Plus has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 79.6 versus 70. Inside this category, V* is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Qwen3.6 Plus has the edge for instruction following in this comparison, averaging 87.8 versus 79.4. Inside this category, IFBench is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Claude Opus 4.5 has the edge for multilingual tasks in this comparison, averaging 85.7 versus 84.7. Inside this category, NOVA-63 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.