Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Claude Opus 4.6
91
Qwen3 235B 2507
35
Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.6 #3 · Qwen3 235B 2507 unranked
Pick Claude Opus 4.6 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3 235B 2507 only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Knowledge
Claude Opus 4.6
Qwen3 235B 2507
$5 / $25
$0 / $0
40 t/s
N/A
1.78s
N/A
1M
128K
Pick Claude Opus 4.6 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3 235B 2507 only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Claude Opus 4.6 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 91 to 35. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Opus 4.6 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Qwen3 235B 2507. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Claude Opus 4.6 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 128K for Qwen3 235B 2507.
Claude Opus 4.6 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 91 to 35. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SuperGPQA, where the scores are 95% and 62.6%.
Claude Opus 4.6 and Qwen3 235B 2507 are effectively tied for knowledge tasks here, both landing at 76.2 on average.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.