Claude Opus 4.5 vs Qwen3.6 Plus

Updated October 5, 2026. Rank cannot separate these two. Price, access, and your workload decide. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.

Decision reading

Claude Opus 4.5 has the higher public score estimate, 54.06 versus 53.68, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner. 40 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Model A

Claude Opus 4.5

Anthropic

54.06/100

Supported · Public rank #65

90% interval 41.8–66.3

Model B

Qwen3.6 Plus

Alibaba

53.68/100

Supported · Public rank #67

90% interval 44.6–62.7

Shared results: 40
Claude Opus 4.5 only: 5
Qwen3.6 Plus only: 8
Like-for-like categories: 4 / 8

Supported: Claude Opus 4.5 and Qwen3.6 PlusHow the comparison works

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 Plus
Qwen3.6 Plus 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
Claude Opus 4.5 is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
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 Plus 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

Which one for a specific job

Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.

Pick the job you would use them for

The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.

41.6Claude Opus 4.541.7Qwen3.6 Plus

Directional only · BenchAlign v5.8

Qwen3.6 Plus has the higher coding point estimate. Conditional score ranges do not establish rank confidence.

Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.

Open the coding leaderboard Shortlist models for this job

Same basis rules as the category table below

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.

IFBenchInstruction following
Normalized gap 17.8
Claude Opus 4.5:58%
Qwen3.6 Plus:75.8%
Shared source
CharXivMultimodal
Normalized gap 13.0
Claude Opus 4.5:68.5%
Qwen3.6 Plus:81.5%
Shared source
MMMU-ProMultimodal
Normalized gap 8.2
Claude Opus 4.5:70.6%
Qwen3.6 Plus:78.8%
Shared source
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Math
Normalized gap 5.5
Claude Opus 4.5:20.690%
Qwen3.6 Plus:26.207%
Shared source
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Math
Normalized gap 4.2
Claude Opus 4.5:4.167%
Qwen3.6 Plus:8.333%
Shared source

Bars run 0–100 on each benchmark’s normalized display scale

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.8 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: 24.5; #47/49
Qwen3.6 Plus: 67.2; #23/49
Basis: Provisional lane · 2 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading: Qwen3.6 Plus leads

Multilingual

Like-for-like

Claude Opus 4.5: 96.5; #2/16
Qwen3.6 Plus: 93.8; #4/16
Basis: Provisional lane · 1 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading: Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Instruction following

Like-for-like

Claude Opus 4.5: 30.6; #115/125
Qwen3.6 Plus: 82.5; #48/125
Basis: Provisional lane · 1 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading: Qwen3.6 Plus leads

Math

Like-for-like

Claude Opus 4.5: 57.9; #6/7
Qwen3.6 Plus: 62.0; #5/7
Basis: Provisional lane · 4 vs 4 weighted rows
Reading: Qwen3.6 Plus leads

Agentic

Directional only

Claude Opus 4.5: 30.8; Estimated · #80/119
Qwen3.6 Plus: 33.6; Supported · #75/119
Basis: BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 15 vs 13 public rows
Reading: Directional only

Coding

Directional only

Claude Opus 4.5: 41.6; Estimated · #60/144
Qwen3.6 Plus: 41.7; Supported · #59/144
Basis: BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 5 vs 7 public rows
Reading: Directional only

Knowledge

Directional only

Claude Opus 4.5: 49.4; Estimated · #68/171
Qwen3.6 Plus: 52.5; Supported · #60/171
Basis: BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 6 vs 8 public rows
Reading: Directional only

Reasoning

Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.5: 73.3; Unranked · 4 rankable rows
Qwen3.6 Plus: 61.3; Unranked · 4 rankable rows
Basis: Provisional lane · 1 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Category scores with the server-provided evidence basis for Claude Opus 4.5 and Qwen3.6 Plus
Category	Claude Opus 4.5	Qwen3.6 Plus	Basis	Reading
Multimodal	24.5#47/49	67.2#23/49	Like-for-likeProvisional lane · 2 vs 2 weighted rows	Qwen3.6 Plus leads
Multilingual	96.5#2/16	93.8#4/16	Like-for-likeProvisional lane · 1 vs 1 weighted rows	Claude Opus 4.5 leads
Instruction following	30.6#115/125	82.5#48/125	Like-for-likeProvisional lane · 1 vs 1 weighted rows	Qwen3.6 Plus leads
Math	57.9#6/7	62.0#5/7	Like-for-likeProvisional lane · 4 vs 4 weighted rows	Qwen3.6 Plus leads
Agentic	30.8Estimated · #80/119	33.6Supported · #75/119	Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 15 vs 13 public rows	Directional only
Coding	41.6Estimated · #60/144	41.7Supported · #59/144	Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 5 vs 7 public rows	Directional only
Knowledge	49.4Estimated · #68/171	52.5Supported · #60/171	Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 6 vs 8 public rows	Directional only
Reasoning	73.3Unranked · 4 rankable rows	61.3Unranked · 4 rankable rows	Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 1 weighted rows	Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.8) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

Supported evidence per lane · bars run 0–100Methodology

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 Plus: API rate not published; Fits in one request

Qwen3.6 Plus 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 Plus: API rate not published; Fits in one request

Qwen3.6 Plus 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 Plus: 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 Plus has no comparable published API token rate.

Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished

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 Plus

Context window

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

Claude Opus 4.5

200K

Qwen3.6 Plus

API model ID

Claude Opus 4.5

Not sourced

Qwen3.6 Plus

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 Plus

No comparable hosted API rate

Documented inputs

Claude Opus 4.5

Not sourced

Qwen3.6 Plus

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Claude Opus 4.5

Not sourced

Qwen3.6 Plus

Not sourced

Provider availability

Claude Opus 4.5

Not sourced

Qwen3.6 Plus

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Claude Opus 4.5

Non-Reasoning

Qwen3.6 Plus

Reasoning

Weight access

Claude Opus 4.5

Proprietary

Qwen3.6 Plus

Proprietary

License

Claude Opus 4.5

Proprietary

Qwen3.6 Plus

Proprietary

Release date

Claude Opus 4.5

2025-11-01

Qwen3.6 Plus

2026-04-02

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, 54.06 versus 53.68, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
Workload cost: A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff: Qwen3.6 Plus has the larger documented window (1M).

Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Questions

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.5 or Qwen3.6 Plus?

Claude Opus 4.5 has the higher public score estimate, 54.06 versus 53.68, 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 Plus?

Qwen3.6 Plus scores higher for coding on the public lane, 41.7 to 41.6. Claude Opus 4.5 is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for coding from a directional reading; 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 Plus?

Qwen3.6 Plus scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 33.6 to 30.8. 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 Plus?

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 Plus?

Qwen3.6 Plus has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 200K.

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence53 rows

Agentic

Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Opus 4.559.3%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus61.6%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus leads this result
OSWorld-Verified
Claude Opus 4.566.3%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus—
Not directly comparable
OSWorld
Claude Opus 4.566.3%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus—
Not directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Claude Opus 4.559.6%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus58.8%
Source
Claude Opus 4.5 leads this result
QwenClawBench
Shared source
Claude Opus 4.552.3%
Qwen3.6 Plus57.2%
Qwen3.6 Plus leads this result
τ³-bench results
Shared source
Claude Opus 4.570.2%
Qwen3.6 Plus70.7%
Qwen3.6 Plus leads this result
VITA-Bench
Claude Opus 4.523.3%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus44.3%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus leads this result
DeepPlanning
Shared source
Claude Opus 4.526.4%
Qwen3.6 Plus41.5%
Qwen3.6 Plus leads this result
Toolathlon
Shared source
Claude Opus 4.543.5%
Qwen3.6 Plus39.8%
Claude Opus 4.5 leads this result
MCP Atlas
Shared source
Claude Opus 4.542.3%
Qwen3.6 Plus48.2%
Qwen3.6 Plus leads this result
MCP-Tasks
Shared source
Claude Opus 4.571.8%
Qwen3.6 Plus74.1%
Qwen3.6 Plus leads this result
WideResearch
Shared source
Claude Opus 4.576.4%
Qwen3.6 Plus74.3%
Claude Opus 4.5 leads this result
CyberGym
Claude Opus 4.550.6%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus—
Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
Shared source
Claude Opus 4.564.23%
Qwen3.6 Plus50.60%
Claude Opus 4.5 leads this result
JobBench
Claude Opus 4.532.3%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus—
Not directly comparable
ResearchClawBench
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.6 Plus18.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.6 Plus53.2%
Source
Not directly comparable

Coding

SWE-bench Verified
Claude Opus 4.580.9%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus78.8%
Source
Claude Opus 4.5 leads this result
LiveCodeBench v6
Shared source
Claude Opus 4.584.8%
Qwen3.6 Plus87.1%
Qwen3.6 Plus leads this result
SWE-bench Pro
Shared source
Claude Opus 4.557.1%
Qwen3.6 Plus56.6%
Claude Opus 4.5 leads this result
SWE Multilingual
Shared source
Claude Opus 4.577.5%
Qwen3.6 Plus73.8%
Claude Opus 4.5 leads this result
NL2Repo
Claude Opus 4.543.2%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus—
Not directly comparable
Vibe Code Bench
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.6 Plus25.56%
Source
Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.6 Plus86.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench (Vals)
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.6 Plus73.4%
Source
Not directly comparable

Reasoning

LongBench v2
Shared source
Claude Opus 4.564.4%
Qwen3.6 Plus62%
Claude Opus 4.5 leads this result
AI-Needle
Shared source
Claude Opus 4.574%
Qwen3.6 Plus68.3%
Claude Opus 4.5 leads this result

Multimodal

MMMU-Pro
Shared source
Claude Opus 4.570.6%
Qwen3.6 Plus78.8%
Qwen3.6 Plus leads this result
MathVision
Shared source
Claude Opus 4.574.3%
Qwen3.6 Plus88.0%
Qwen3.6 Plus leads this result
CharXiv
Shared source
Claude Opus 4.568.5%
Qwen3.6 Plus81.5%
Qwen3.6 Plus leads this result
VideoMMMU
Shared source
Claude Opus 4.584.4%
Qwen3.6 Plus84.0%
Claude Opus 4.5 leads this result
ScreenSpot Pro
Shared source
Claude Opus 4.545.7%
Qwen3.6 Plus68.2%
Qwen3.6 Plus leads this result
V*
Shared source
Claude Opus 4.567.0%
Qwen3.6 Plus96.9%
Qwen3.6 Plus leads this result
MMMU
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.6 Plus86.0%
Source
Not directly comparable

Knowledge

GPQA
Claude Opus 4.587%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus90.4%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus leads this result
SuperGPQA
Shared source
Claude Opus 4.570.6%
Qwen3.6 Plus71.6%
Qwen3.6 Plus leads this result
MMLU-Pro
Shared source
Claude Opus 4.589.5%
Qwen3.6 Plus88.5%
Claude Opus 4.5 leads this result
MMLU-Redux
Shared source
Claude Opus 4.596.6%
Qwen3.6 Plus94.5%
Claude Opus 4.5 leads this result
C-Eval
Shared source
Claude Opus 4.592.2%
Qwen3.6 Plus93.3%
Qwen3.6 Plus leads this result
HLE
Shared source
Claude Opus 4.530.8%
Qwen3.6 Plus28.8%
Claude Opus 4.5 leads this result
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.6 Plus87.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.6 Plus87.7%
Source
Not directly comparable

Multilingual

MMLU-ProX
Shared source
Claude Opus 4.585.7%
Qwen3.6 Plus84.7%
Claude Opus 4.5 leads this result
NOVA-63
Shared source
Claude Opus 4.556.7%
Qwen3.6 Plus57.9%
Qwen3.6 Plus leads this result

Instruction following

IFEval
Shared source
Claude Opus 4.590.9%
Qwen3.6 Plus94.3%
Qwen3.6 Plus leads this result
IFBench
Shared source
Claude Opus 4.558%
Qwen3.6 Plus75.8%
Qwen3.6 Plus leads this result

Math

AIME26
Shared source
Claude Opus 4.595.1%
Qwen3.6 Plus95.3%
Qwen3.6 Plus leads this result
HMMT Feb 2025
Shared source
Claude Opus 4.592.9%
Qwen3.6 Plus96.7%
Qwen3.6 Plus leads this result
HMMT Nov 2025
Shared source
Claude Opus 4.593.3%
Qwen3.6 Plus94.6%
Qwen3.6 Plus leads this result
HMMT Feb 2026
Shared source
Claude Opus 4.585.3%
Qwen3.6 Plus87.8%
Qwen3.6 Plus leads this result
MMAnswerBench
Shared source
Claude Opus 4.584.0%
Qwen3.6 Plus83.8%
Claude Opus 4.5 leads this result
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Shared source
Claude Opus 4.520.690%
Qwen3.6 Plus26.207%
Qwen3.6 Plus leads this result
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
Shared source
Claude Opus 4.54.167%
Qwen3.6 Plus8.333%
Qwen3.6 Plus leads this result

53 public results · 40 shared

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Watch Claude Opus 4.5 vs Qwen3.6 Plus

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

Read a sample issue

Join 5,500+ readers.

Last updated October 5, 2026

Claude Opus 4.5 vs Qwen3.6 Plus

Decision reading

Which one for your work

Long documents

Coding work

Agentic work

Chat turn cost

Cache-heavy agent loop cost

Repository review cost

Which one for a specific job

What is actually comparable

Shape of the matched evidence

Category results, on a stated basis

Multimodal

Multilingual

Instruction following

Math

Agentic

Coding

Knowledge

Reasoning

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

If you already use one of these models

Questions

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.5 or Qwen3.6 Plus?

Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.5 or Qwen3.6 Plus?

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.5 or Qwen3.6 Plus?

Which costs less, Claude Opus 4.5 or Qwen3.6 Plus?

Which has the larger context window, Claude Opus 4.5 or Qwen3.6 Plus?

Benchmark evidence

Agentic

Coding

Reasoning

Multimodal

Knowledge

Multilingual

Instruction following

Math

Related comparisons

Watch Claude Opus 4.5 vs Qwen3.6 Plus