Skip to main content
Radar

Five or fewer confirmed AI changes, with original sources, on mornings when something changed.A free source-linked morning brief.

Start free brief
BenchLM
Model A
Claude Opus 4.6

Anthropic

68.0/100

Supported · Public rank #22

90% interval 54.7–81.2

Claude Opus 4.6 vs Qwen3.6 Plus

Updated August 18, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Model B
Qwen3.6 Plus

Alibaba

64.8/100

Supported · Public rank #36

90% interval 55.7–73.9

Decision reading

Claude Opus 4.6 has the higher public score estimate, 67.98 versus 64.79, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.

15 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

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.

No workload recommendation clears the current evidence threshold.

Use the matched evidence, workload costs, and sourced specifications below instead of treating a point score as a universal answer.

Show secondary and unsupported calls

  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are directional rather than like-for-like.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Not enough matched evidence

    The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are directional rather than like-for-like.

    Confidence: limited

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    No clear pick

    The documented context windows are equal.

    Confidence: documented

  • 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

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    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

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

Shared results
15
Claude Opus 4.6 only
18
Qwen3.6 Plus only
29
Like-for-like categories
1 / 8

4 categories use different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.

Knowledge

Like-for-like
Claude Opus 4.6
69.1
Qwen3.6 Plus
57.1
Weighted basis
4 vs 4 rows
Reading
Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Agentic

Directional only
Claude Opus 4.6
73.0
Qwen3.6 Plus
61.6
Weighted basis
3 vs 1 rows
Reading
Directional only

Coding

Directional only
Claude Opus 4.6
68.1
Qwen3.6 Plus
70.3
Weighted basis
3 vs 2 rows
Reading
Directional only

Math

Directional only
Claude Opus 4.6
36.3
Qwen3.6 Plus
60.5
Weighted basis
2 vs 4 rows
Reading
Directional only

Multimodal

Directional only
Claude Opus 4.6
77.3
Qwen3.6 Plus
79.8
Weighted basis
1 vs 2 rows
Reading
Directional only

Reasoning

Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.6
Not measured
Qwen3.6 Plus
62.0
Weighted basis
0 vs 1 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.6
Not measured
Qwen3.6 Plus
84.7
Weighted basis
0 vs 1 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.6
Not measured
Qwen3.6 Plus
82.3
Weighted basis
0 vs 2 rows
Reading
Not comparable

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.

  • HLE

    Knowledge

    Claude Opus 4.6: 53%Qwen3.6 Plus: 28.8%Normalized gap 24.2Claude Opus 4.6 source Qwen3.6 Plus source

  • SuperGPQA

    Knowledge

    Claude Opus 4.6: 95%Qwen3.6 Plus: 71.6%Normalized gap 23.4Shared source

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Math

    Claude Opus 4.6: 22.900%Qwen3.6 Plus: 8.333%Normalized gap 14.6Shared source

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Math

    Claude Opus 4.6: 40.700%Qwen3.6 Plus: 26.207%Normalized gap 14.5Shared source

  • MMLU-Pro

    Knowledge

    Claude Opus 4.6: 82%Qwen3.6 Plus: 88.5%Normalized gap 6.5Shared source

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 4.6
$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 4.6
$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 4.6
$1.35
Fits 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 4.6 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Qwen3.6 Plus has no comparable published API token rate.

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

Context window

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

Claude Opus 4.6

1M

Qwen3.6 Plus

1M

API model ID

Claude Opus 4.6

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 4.6

Not published

Qwen3.6 Plus

No comparable hosted API rate

Documented inputs

Claude Opus 4.6

Not sourced

Qwen3.6 Plus

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Claude Opus 4.6

Not sourced

Qwen3.6 Plus

Not sourced

Provider availability

Claude Opus 4.6

Not sourced

Qwen3.6 Plus

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Claude Opus 4.6

Non-Reasoning

Qwen3.6 Plus

Reasoning

Weight access

Claude Opus 4.6

Proprietary

Qwen3.6 Plus

Proprietary

License

Claude Opus 4.6

Proprietary

Qwen3.6 Plus

Proprietary

Release date

Claude Opus 4.6

2026-02-01

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 4.6 has the higher public score estimate, 67.98 versus 64.79, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
Workload cost
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff
Both models list 1M.

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

Benchmark evidence

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

Browse raw public benchmark evidence62 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Claude Opus 4.665.4%
    Source
    Qwen3.6 Plus61.6%
    Source

    Claude Opus 4.6 leads this result

  • BrowseComp

    Claude Opus 4.683.7%
    Source
    Qwen3.6 Plus—

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld-Verified

    Claude Opus 4.672.7%
    Source
    Qwen3.6 Plus—

    Not directly comparable

  • Claw-Eval

    Shared source
    Claude Opus 4.670.4%
    Qwen3.6 Plus58.8%

    Claude Opus 4.6 leads this result

  • DeepSearchQA

    Claude Opus 4.673.7%
    Source
    Qwen3.6 Plus—

    Not directly comparable

  • CyberGym

    Claude Opus 4.666.6%
    Source
    Qwen3.6 Plus—

    Not directly comparable

  • Gert Labs

    Shared source
    Claude Opus 4.661.85%
    Qwen3.6 Plus50.60%

    Claude Opus 4.6 leads this result

  • ResearchClawBench

    Shared source
    Claude Opus 4.619.9%
    Qwen3.6 Plus18.0%

    Claude Opus 4.6 leads this result

  • JobBench

    Claude Opus 4.636.7%
    Source
    Qwen3.6 Plus—

    Not directly comparable

  • QwenClawBench

    Claude Opus 4.6—
    Qwen3.6 Plus57.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • τ³-bench results

    Claude Opus 4.6—
    Qwen3.6 Plus70.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • VITA-Bench

    Claude Opus 4.6—
    Qwen3.6 Plus44.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepPlanning

    Claude Opus 4.6—
    Qwen3.6 Plus41.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon

    Claude Opus 4.6—
    Qwen3.6 Plus39.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP Atlas

    Claude Opus 4.6—
    Qwen3.6 Plus48.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP-Tasks

    Claude Opus 4.6—
    Qwen3.6 Plus74.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • WideResearch

    Claude Opus 4.6—
    Qwen3.6 Plus74.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Claude Opus 4.680.8%
    Source
    Qwen3.6 Plus78.8%
    Source

    Claude Opus 4.6 leads this result

  • SWE-bench Verified*

    Claude Opus 4.675.6%
    Source
    Qwen3.6 Plus—

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench Pro

    Claude Opus 4.670.7%
    Source
    Qwen3.6 Plus—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Claude Opus 4.653.4%
    Source
    Qwen3.6 Plus56.6%
    Source

    Qwen3.6 Plus leads this result

  • SWE-Rebench

    Claude Opus 4.665.3%
    Source
    Qwen3.6 Plus—

    Not directly comparable

  • React Native Evals

    Claude Opus 4.684.1%
    Source
    Qwen3.6 Plus—

    Not directly comparable

  • Vibe Code Bench

    Shared source
    Claude Opus 4.657.57%
    Qwen3.6 Plus25.56%

    Claude Opus 4.6 leads this result

  • FrontierCode 1.1 Main

    Claude Opus 4.626.9%
    Source
    Qwen3.6 Plus—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE Multilingual

    Claude Opus 4.6—
    Qwen3.6 Plus73.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench v6

    Claude Opus 4.6—
    Qwen3.6 Plus87.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • EEBench

    Claude Opus 4.6—
    Qwen3.6 Plus12.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • AI-Needle

    Claude Opus 4.6—
    Qwen3.6 Plus68.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • LongBench v2

    Claude Opus 4.6—
    Qwen3.6 Plus62%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA

    Claude Opus 4.691.3%
    Source
    Qwen3.6 Plus90.4%
    Source

    Claude Opus 4.6 leads this result

  • GPQA-D

    Claude Opus 4.689.2%
    Source
    Qwen3.6 Plus—

    Not directly comparable

  • SuperGPQA

    Shared source
    Claude Opus 4.695%
    Qwen3.6 Plus71.6%

    Claude Opus 4.6 leads this result

  • MMLU-Pro

    Shared source
    Claude Opus 4.682%
    Qwen3.6 Plus88.5%

    Qwen3.6 Plus leads this result

  • MMLU-Pro (Arcee)

    Claude Opus 4.689.1%
    Source
    Qwen3.6 Plus—

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE

    Claude Opus 4.653%
    Source
    Qwen3.6 Plus28.8%
    Source

    Claude Opus 4.6 leads this result

  • HLE w/o tools

    Claude Opus 4.640%
    Source
    Qwen3.6 Plus—

    Not directly comparable

  • HealthBench Hard

    Claude Opus 4.614.8%
    Source
    Qwen3.6 Plus—

    Not directly comparable

  • MedXpertQA (Text)

    Claude Opus 4.652.1%
    Source
    Qwen3.6 Plus—

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Redux

    Claude Opus 4.6—
    Qwen3.6 Plus94.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • C-Eval

    Claude Opus 4.6—
    Qwen3.6 Plus93.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • AIME25 (Arcee)

    Claude Opus 4.699.8%
    Source
    Qwen3.6 Plus—

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Shared source
    Claude Opus 4.640.700%
    Qwen3.6 Plus26.207%

    Claude Opus 4.6 leads this result

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Shared source
    Claude Opus 4.622.900%
    Qwen3.6 Plus8.333%

    Claude Opus 4.6 leads this result

  • AIME26

    Claude Opus 4.6—
    Qwen3.6 Plus95.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HMMT Feb 2025

    Claude Opus 4.6—
    Qwen3.6 Plus96.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HMMT Nov 2025

    Claude Opus 4.6—
    Qwen3.6 Plus94.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HMMT Feb 2026

    Claude Opus 4.6—
    Qwen3.6 Plus87.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMAnswerBench

    Claude Opus 4.6—
    Qwen3.6 Plus83.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multilingual

  • MMLU-ProX

    Claude Opus 4.6—
    Qwen3.6 Plus84.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • NOVA-63

    Claude Opus 4.6—
    Qwen3.6 Plus57.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • MMMU-Pro

    Claude Opus 4.677.3%
    Source
    Qwen3.6 Plus78.8%
    Source

    Qwen3.6 Plus leads this result

  • ERQA

    Claude Opus 4.651.6%
    Source
    Qwen3.6 Plus—

    Not directly comparable

  • ScreenSpot Pro

    Claude Opus 4.683.1%
    Source
    Qwen3.6 Plus68.2%
    Source

    Claude Opus 4.6 leads this result

  • MedXpertQA (MM)

    Claude Opus 4.664.8%
    Source
    Qwen3.6 Plus—

    Not directly comparable

  • MMMU

    Claude Opus 4.6—
    Qwen3.6 Plus86.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MathVision

    Claude Opus 4.6—
    Qwen3.6 Plus88.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • VideoMMMU

    Claude Opus 4.6—
    Qwen3.6 Plus84.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv

    Claude Opus 4.6—
    Qwen3.6 Plus81.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • V*

    Claude Opus 4.6—
    Qwen3.6 Plus96.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Instruction following

  • IFEval

    Claude Opus 4.6—
    Qwen3.6 Plus94.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • IFBench

    Claude Opus 4.6—
    Qwen3.6 Plus75.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.6 or Qwen3.6 Plus?

Claude Opus 4.6 has the higher public score estimate, 67.98 versus 64.79, 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 4.6 or Qwen3.6 Plus?

The current coding averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so BenchLM does not name a winner from them. Read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.6 or Qwen3.6 Plus?

The current agentic tasks averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so BenchLM does not name a winner from them. Read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which costs less, Claude Opus 4.6 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 4.6 or Qwen3.6 Plus?

Both models list the same context window, 1M.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated August 18, 2026

Watch Claude Opus 4.6 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 2,000+ readers.