Skip to main content
BenchLM

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.8 vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 27 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.

85/100
Margin
27.0pts
← winning
58/100
4 category wins1 category wins

Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.8 #3; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B #31

Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.8 and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B share 27 comparable benchmark results. 5 of 8 categories are comparable. 26 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.8; 31 to Qwen3.6-35B-A3B.

Updated July 12, 2026
Shared results
27
Claude Opus 4.8 only
26
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B only
31
Comparable categories
5 / 8

Pick Claude Opus 4.8 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.6-35B-A3B only becomes the better choice if mathematics is the priority.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 27 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 4.8 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 85 to 58. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Claude Opus 4.8's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 80.3 against 51.5. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HLE, 57.9% 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.

Claude Opus 4.8 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 scores and score margins for Claude Opus 4.8 and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
CategoryClaude Opus 4.8ΔQwen3.6-35B-A3B
MathClaude Opus 4.853.9Margin→ 34.3Qwen3.6-35B-A3B88.2
AgenticClaude Opus 4.880.3Margin← 28.8Qwen3.6-35B-A3B51.5
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.862.7Margin← 10.9Qwen3.6-35B-A3B51.8
CodingClaude Opus 4.876.4Margin← 9.5Qwen3.6-35B-A3B66.9
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.877.0Margin← 0.7Qwen3.6-35B-A3B76.3

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Claude Opus 4.8B · Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

  1. HLE

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 57.9%B 21.4%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 36.5
    HLE: Claude Opus 4.8 scored 57.9%; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B scored 21.4%. Claude Opus 4.8 wins this benchmark.

  2. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 74.6%B 51.5%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 23.1
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Opus 4.8 scored 74.6%; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B scored 51.5%. Claude Opus 4.8 wins this benchmark.

  3. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 69.2%B 49.5%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 19.7
    SWE-bench Pro: Claude Opus 4.8 scored 69.2%; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B scored 49.5%. Claude Opus 4.8 wins this benchmark.

  4. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 88.6%B 73.4%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 15.2
    SWE-bench Verified: Claude Opus 4.8 scored 88.6%; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B scored 73.4%. Claude Opus 4.8 wins this benchmark.

  5. CharXiv

    Multimodal
    Source ↗
    A 89.9%B 78%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 11.9
    CharXiv: Claude Opus 4.8 scored 89.9%; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B scored 78%. Claude Opus 4.8 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3.6-35B-A3BComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.8$5 input / $25 outputQwen3.6-35B-A3BNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.8Not availableQwen3.6-35B-A3BNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.8Not availableQwen3.6-35B-A3BNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.81MQwen3.6-35B-A3B262KClaude Opus 4.8 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticClaude Opus 4.8 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3.6-35B-A3BResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 74.6%51.5%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
BrowseCompSource 84.3%—Not comparable
DeepSearchQASource 93.1%—Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 83.4%—Not comparable
Finance Agent v2Source 53.9%—Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 16001047Claude Opus 4.8 leads
MCP AtlasSource 82.2%62.8%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
ToolathlonSource 59.9%26.9%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Gert LabsSource 72.97%42.65%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA Agentic IndexSource 47.2%21.4%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Tau2-TelecomSource 94.4%95.3%Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads
GDPval-AASource 55.0%27.4%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
ResearchClawBenchSource 21.1%—Not comparable
OSWorld 2.0Source 20.6%—Not comparable
AA BriefcaseSource 1354—Not comparable
AA AutomationBenchSource 48.5%—Not comparable
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource 44.0%—Not comparable
AA Harvey LABSource 7.5%—Not comparable
AA Tau3 BankingSource 27.6%—Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource —68.7%Not comparable
QwenClawBenchSource —52.6%Not comparable
QwenWebBenchSource —1397Not comparable
TAU3-BenchSource —67.2%Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource —35.6%Not comparable
DeepPlanningSource —25.9%Not comparable
WideResearchSource —60.1%Not comparable
CodingClaude Opus 4.8 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3.6-35B-A3BResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 88.6%73.4%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
SWE-bench ProSource 69.2%49.5%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
SWE MultilingualSource 84.4%67.2%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
SWE MultimodalSource 38.4%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 74.6%51.5%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
cursorBench31Source 58.4%—Not comparable
cursorBench32Source 62.3%—Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 74.3%41.9%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Terminal-Bench HardSource 58.3%34.8%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-SciCodeSource 53.5%35.8%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
FrontierCodeSource 46.5%—Not comparable
AA Terminal-Bench 2.1Source 84.6%—Not comparable
LiveCodeBenchSource —80.4%Not comparable
NL2RepoSource —29.4%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3.6-35B-A3BResult
AA-LCRSource 67.7%63.7%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
CritPtSource 20.9%0.3%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.8 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3.6-35B-A3BResult
GPQASource 93.6%86%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
GPQA-DSource 93.6%—Not comparable
HLESource 57.9%21.4%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
HLE w/o toolsSource 49.8%—Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 55.7%31.6%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 92.0%84.1%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-HLESource 45.7%20.2%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 27.4%-21.4%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 46.6%18.9%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 35.9%49.7%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
MMLU-ProSource —85.2%Not comparable
SuperGPQASource —64.7%Not comparable
C-EvalSource —90%Not comparable
MathQwen3.6-35B-A3B wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3.6-35B-A3BResult
USAMO 2026Source 96.7%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 47.241%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 31.250%—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
Multilingual
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3.6-35B-A3BResult
INCLUDESource 87.6%—Not comparable
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.8 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3.6-35B-A3BResult
OfficeQA ProSource 66.2%—Not comparable
ScreenSpot ProSource 87.9%—Not comparable
CharXivSource 89.9%78%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
CharXiv w/o toolsSource 80.5%—Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1281—Not comparable
MMMUSource —81.7%Not comparable
MMMU-ProSource —75.3%Not comparable
RealWorldQASource —85.3%Not comparable
OmniDocBench 1.5Source —89.9%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
AA-MMMU-ProSource —75.0%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3.6-35B-A3BResult
AA-IFBenchSource 62.2%64.4%Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads
Frequently Asked Questions (6)

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.8 or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?

Claude Opus 4.8 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 85 to 58. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 57.9% and 21.4%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 4.8 or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?

Claude Opus 4.8 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 62.7 versus 51.8. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.8 or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?

Claude Opus 4.8 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 76.4 versus 66.9. Inside this category, AA Coding Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for math, Claude Opus 4.8 or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 88.2 versus 53.9. Claude Opus 4.8 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.8 or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?

Claude Opus 4.8 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 80.3 versus 51.5. Inside this category, GDPval-AA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Opus 4.8 or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?

Claude Opus 4.8 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 77 versus 76.3. Inside this category, CharXiv is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Anthropic Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 12, 2026

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.