Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.6 vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
Head-to-head evidence from 23 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.6 #8; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B #31
BenchAlign evidence: Claude Opus 4.6 supported; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B estimated. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.6 and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B share 23 comparable benchmark results. 5 of 8 categories are comparable. 25 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.6; 35 to Qwen3.6-35B-A3B.
Updated July 15, 2026- Shared results
- 23
- Claude Opus 4.6 only
- 25
- Qwen3.6-35B-A3B only
- 35
- Comparable categories
- 5 / 8
Pick Claude Opus 4.6 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.6-35B-A3B only becomes the better choice if mathematics is the priority or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 23 shared benchmark results across 6 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 4.6 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 84 to 59. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Opus 4.6's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 73 against 51.5. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HLE, 53% to 21.4%. 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 4.6 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. Claude Opus 4.6 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 262K for Qwen3.6-35B-A3B.
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 | Claude Opus 4.6 | Δ | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Claude Opus 4.636.3 | Margin→ 51.9 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B88.2 |
| Agentic | Claude Opus 4.673.0 | Margin← 21.5 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B51.5 |
| Knowledge | Claude Opus 4.669.2 | Margin← 17.4 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B51.8 |
| Coding | Claude Opus 4.668.1 | Margin→ 5.7 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B73.8 |
| Multimodal | Claude Opus 4.677.3 | Margin← 1.0 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B76.3 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
HLE
KnowledgeA 53%B 21.4%Winner: Claude Opus 4.6Δ 31.6HLE: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 53%; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B scored 21.4%. Claude Opus 4.6 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SuperGPQA
KnowledgeA 95%B 64.7%Winner: Claude Opus 4.6Δ 30.3SuperGPQA: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 95%; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B scored 64.7%. Claude Opus 4.6 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 65.4%B 51.5%Winner: Claude Opus 4.6Δ 13.9Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 65.4%; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B scored 51.5%. Claude Opus 4.6 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 80.8%B 73.4%Winner: Claude Opus 4.6Δ 7.4SWE-bench Verified: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 80.8%; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B scored 73.4%. Claude Opus 4.6 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 91.3%B 86%Winner: Claude Opus 4.6Δ 5.3GPQA: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 91.3%; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B scored 86%. Claude Opus 4.6 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.6 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 4.6$5 input / $25 output | Qwen3.6-35B-A3BNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 4.640 tok/s | Qwen3.6-35B-A3BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 4.61.78 s | Qwen3.6-35B-A3BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 4.61M | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B262K | Claude Opus 4.6 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticClaude Opus 4.6 wins21 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 65.4% | 51.5% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| BrowseCompSource | 83.7% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 72.7% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 84.8% | 95.3% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| Claw-EvalSource | 70.4% | 68.7% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| DeepSearchQASource | 73.7% | — | Not comparable |
| CyberGymSource | 66.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 61.85% | 42.65% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 19.9% | — | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | 36.7% | — | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 52.6% | Not comparable |
| QwenWebBenchSource | — | 1397 | Not comparable |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | — | 67.2% | Not comparable |
| VITA-BenchSource | — | 35.6% | Not comparable |
| DeepPlanningSource | — | 25.9% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 26.9% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 62.8% | Not comparable |
| WideResearchSource | — | 60.1% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 21.4% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 27.4% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1049 | Not comparable |
CodingQwen3.6-35B-A3B wins15 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 80.8% | 73.4% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| SWE-bench Verified*Source | 75.6% | — | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBench ProSource | 70.7% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 53.4% | 49.5% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| SWE-RebenchSource | 65.3% | — | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | 84.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 57.57% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | 48.5% | 34.8% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 45.7% | 35.8% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| FrontierCodeSource | 26.9% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | — | 67.2% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 51.5% | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBenchSource | — | 80.4% | Not comparable |
| NL2RepoSource | — | 29.4% | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 41.9% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.6 wins16 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 91.3% | 86% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| GPQA-DSource | 89.2% | — | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | 95% | 64.7% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| MMLU-ProSource | 82% | 85.2% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| MMLU-Pro (Arcee)Source | 89.1% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 53% | 21.4% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 40% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench HardSource | 14.8% | — | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (Text)Source | 52.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 37.8% | 31.6% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 84.0% | 84.1% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| AA-HLESource | 18.6% | 20.2% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 3.5% | -21.4% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 45.2% | 18.9% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 76.0% | 49.7% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| C-EvalSource | — | 90% | Not comparable |
MathQwen3.6-35B-A3B wins8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME25 (Arcee)Source | 99.8% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | 40.700% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | 22.900% | — | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2025Source | — | 90.7% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Nov 2025Source | — | 89.1% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | — | 83.6% | Not comparable |
| MMAnswerBenchSource | — | 78.9% | Not comparable |
| AIME26Source | — | 92.7% | Not comparable |
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.6 wins20 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProSource | 77.3% | 75.3% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| ERQASource | 51.6% | — | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | 83.1% | — | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (MM)Source | 64.8% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1606 | — | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 72.5% | 75.0% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1330 | — | Not comparable |
| MMMUSource | — | 81.7% | Not comparable |
| RealWorldQASource | — | 85.3% | Not comparable |
| OmniDocBench 1.5Source | — | 89.9% | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 78% | 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 |
| VideoMMMUSource | — | 83.7% | Not comparable |
| MLVU (M-Avg)Source | — | 86.2% | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 44.6% | 64.4% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (6)
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.6 or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?
Claude Opus 4.6 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 84 to 59. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 53% and 21.4%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 4.6 or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?
Claude Opus 4.6 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 69.2 versus 51.8. Inside this category, HLE is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.6 or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 73.8 versus 68.1. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench Hard is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, Claude Opus 4.6 or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 88.2 versus 36.3. Claude Opus 4.6 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.6 or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?
Claude Opus 4.6 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 73 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 4.6 or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?
Claude Opus 4.6 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 77.3 versus 76.3. Inside this category, AA-MMMU-Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
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.