Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Claude Opus 5.5
Claude Opus 5.5 has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Claude Opus 5.5 vs Qwen3.5 397B
Updated September 23, 2026. We do not rank this pair: at least one has no public score. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.
Both of these models will change. Get the price, version and retirement notices for the pair, each with its source. Follow model changes
Share or export
Decision reading
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. 1 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
- Shared results
- 1
- Claude Opus 5.5 only
- 46
- Qwen3.5 397B only
- 37
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
Estimated: Claude Opus 5.5How 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.
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Qwen3.5 397B
Qwen3.5 397B has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Qwen3.5 397B
Qwen3.5 397B has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-ratesCoding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
Qwen3.5 397B is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Confidence: limitedAgentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Qwen3.5 397B is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.
Confidence: limitedCache-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. Qwen3.5 397B does not fit this workload in one request. Qwen3.5 397B has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback
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.
The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.
87.1Claude Opus 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B
Not comparable · BenchAlign v5.6
The coding row is not comparable on the public lane: at least one model is not measured or not ranked there.
Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.
Same basis rules as the category table below
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
46 Claude Opus 5.5 only
1 Shared
37 Qwen3.5 397B only
1 category rests on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
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.
SWE-bench ProCoding
Normalized gap 39.0Claude Opus 5.5:89.9%Qwen3.5 397B:50.9%
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 v5.6 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
Directional only- Claude Opus 5.5
- 88.8
- #3/50
- Qwen3.5 397B
- 62.9
- #28/50
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 1 vs 2 weighted rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Agentic
Not comparable- Claude Opus 5.5
- 88.8
- Supported · #1/105
- Qwen3.5 397B
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.6 lane · 11 vs 13 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Coding
Not comparable- Claude Opus 5.5
- 87.1
- Supported · #1/135
- Qwen3.5 397B
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.6 lane · 9 vs 3 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude Opus 5.5
- 78.5
- #4/18
- Qwen3.5 397B
- 59.8
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Claude Opus 5.5
- 90.0
- Supported · #1/160
- Qwen3.5 397B
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.6 lane · 16 vs 6 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude Opus 5.5
- Not ranked
- Qwen3.5 397B
- 69.7
- #5/12
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Claude Opus 5.5
- Not ranked
- Qwen3.5 397B
- 0.0
- #124/124
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Claude Opus 5.5
- Not ranked
- Qwen3.5 397B
- 73.5
- Unranked · 5 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude Opus 5.5 | Qwen3.5 397B | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Multimodal | 88.8#3/50 | 62.9#28/50 | Directional onlyProvisional lane · 1 vs 2 weighted rows | Directional only |
| Agentic | 88.8Supported · #1/105 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.6 lane · 11 vs 13 public rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | 87.1Supported · #1/135 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.6 lane · 9 vs 3 public rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | 78.5#4/18 | 59.8Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | 90.0Supported · #1/160 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.6 lane · 16 vs 6 public rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | 69.7#5/12 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not ranked | 0.0#124/124 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not ranked | 73.5Unranked · 5 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.6) 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 5.5
- $0.014
- Fits in one request
- Qwen3.5 397B
- $0.0024
- Fits in one request
Qwen3.5 397B has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Claude Opus 5.5
- $0.26
- Fits in one request
- Qwen3.5 397B
- $0.0408
- Fits in one request
Qwen3.5 397B has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Claude Opus 5.5
- $0.32
- Fits in one request
- Qwen3.5 397B
- $0.168
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Qwen3.5 397B does not fit this workload in one request. Qwen3.5 397B has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input 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 5.5Qwen3.5 397B
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude Opus 5.5
Qwen3.5 397B
128K
API model ID
Claude Opus 5.5
claude-opus-5-5
Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 model documentationQwen3.5 397B
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 5.5
$0.2 per 1M cached input tokens
Claude Opus 5.5 model documentationQwen3.5 397B
Not published
Documented inputs
Claude Opus 5.5
Qwen3.5 397B
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Claude Opus 5.5
Qwen3.5 397B
Not sourced
Provider availability
Claude Opus 5.5
Generally Available · Claude API, Amazon Bedrock, Google Cloud, Microsoft Foundry, Claude Platform on AWS
Anthropic Claude Opus 5.5 model documentationQwen3.5 397B
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Claude Opus 5.5
Reasoning
Qwen3.5 397B
Non-Reasoning
Weight access
Claude Opus 5.5
Proprietary
Qwen3.5 397B
Open Weight
License
Claude Opus 5.5
Proprietary
Qwen3.5 397B
Open Weight
Release date
Claude Opus 5.5
2026-09-22
Qwen3.5 397B
2026-02-16
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
- At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.26 vs $0.0408. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.32 vs $0.168.
- Context tradeoff
- Claude Opus 5.5 has the larger documented window (1M).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Questions
Which is better, Claude Opus 5.5 or Qwen3.5 397B?
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.
Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 5.5 or Qwen3.5 397B?
Qwen3.5 397B is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 5.5 or Qwen3.5 397B?
Qwen3.5 397B is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.
Which costs less, Claude Opus 5.5 or Qwen3.5 397B?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.014 on Claude Opus 5.5 and $0.0024 on Qwen3.5 397B; repository review costs $0.26 and $0.0408; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.32 and $0.168. Qwen3.5 397B does not fit this workload in one request. Qwen3.5 397B has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Which has the larger context window, Claude Opus 5.5 or Qwen3.5 397B?
Claude Opus 5.5 has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 128K.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence84 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 4.0
Claude Opus 5.566.40%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1
Claude Opus 5.558.7%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
AutomationBench
Claude Opus 5.540.0%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
HLE w/ tools
Claude Opus 5.567.7%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
Claude Opus 5.548.7%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
LAB all-pass (Harvey held-out)
Claude Opus 5.58.3%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
LAB criterion-pass (Harvey held-out)
Claude Opus 5.591.2%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
Toolathlon-Verified
Claude Opus 5.577.8%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
Toolathlon Verified Pass@3
Claude Opus 5.582.4%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
Toolathlon Verified Pass³
Claude Opus 5.572.2%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
Toolathlon Verified avg. turns
Claude Opus 5.526.9 turnsSourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Opus 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B52.5%SourceNot directly comparable
BrowseComp
Claude Opus 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B62%SourceNot directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Claude Opus 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B56.8%SourceNot directly comparable
QwenClawBench
Claude Opus 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B51.8%SourceNot directly comparable
τ³-bench results
Claude Opus 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B68.4%SourceNot directly comparable
VITA-Bench
Claude Opus 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B43.7%SourceNot directly comparable
DeepPlanning
Claude Opus 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B37.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Toolathlon
Claude Opus 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B36.3%SourceNot directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Claude Opus 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B46.1%SourceNot directly comparable
MCP-Tasks
Claude Opus 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B74.2%SourceNot directly comparable
WideResearch
Claude Opus 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B74.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Gert Labs
Claude Opus 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B46.76%SourceNot directly comparable
ResearchClawBench
Claude Opus 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B14.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
FrontierCode 1.1 Main
Claude Opus 5.554.4%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
cursorBench40
Claude Opus 5.557.8%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Claude Opus 5.589.9%SourceQwen3.5 397B50.9%SourceClaude Opus 5.5 leads this result
SWE Multilingual
Claude Opus 5.593.9%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
SWE Multimodal
Claude Opus 5.561.4%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
DeepSWE
Claude Opus 5.574.2%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 Extended
Claude Opus 5.563.6%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
FrontierSWE v2
Claude Opus 5.562.3%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
ProgramBench
Claude Opus 5.591.2%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Verified
Claude Opus 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B76.2%SourceNot directly comparable
LiveCodeBench v6
Claude Opus 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B83.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
Multimodal
Chartography (tools)
Claude Opus 5.589.0%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
Chartography (no tools)
Claude Opus 5.564.4%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
BenchCAD Vision2Code (no tools)
Claude Opus 5.50.730SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
BenchCAD Vision2Code (tools)
Claude Opus 5.50.962SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
Biomedical image analysis
Claude Opus 5.571.4%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
OfficeQA
Claude Opus 5.578.9%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
OfficeQA Pro
Claude Opus 5.567.7%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
MMMU-Pro
Claude Opus 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B79%SourceNot directly comparable
MathVision
Claude Opus 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B88.6%SourceNot directly comparable
CharXiv
Claude Opus 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B80.8%SourceNot directly comparable
VideoMMMU
Claude Opus 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B84.7%SourceNot directly comparable
ScreenSpot Pro
Claude Opus 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B65.6%SourceNot directly comparable
V*
Claude Opus 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B95.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
HLE w/o tools
Claude Opus 5.564.4%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
HealthBench (raw)
Claude Opus 5.568.1%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
HealthBench (length-adjusted)
Claude Opus 5.560.6%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
HealthBench Professional
Claude Opus 5.565.6%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
HealthBench Professional (raw)
Claude Opus 5.577.1%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
BioMysteryBench (human-solvable)
Claude Opus 5.589.3%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
BioMysteryBench (human-difficult)
Claude Opus 5.550.0%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
SpatialBench Verified
Claude Opus 5.572.0%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
SingleCellBench
Claude Opus 5.561.2%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
Morphology-to-molecule matching
Claude Opus 5.534.0%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
Medicinal chemistry
Claude Opus 5.563.5%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
Protein Design
Claude Opus 5.560.2%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
Protein Design library ranking
Claude Opus 5.556.0%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
De novo protein-binder design
Claude Opus 5.582.6%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
Protocols (troubleshooting)
Claude Opus 5.573.7%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
Protocols (understanding)
Claude Opus 5.569.0%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
GPQA
Claude Opus 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B88.4%SourceNot directly comparable
SuperGPQA
Claude Opus 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B70.4%SourceNot directly comparable
MMLU-Pro
Claude Opus 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B87.8%SourceNot directly comparable
MMLU-Redux
Claude Opus 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B94.9%SourceNot directly comparable
C-Eval
Claude Opus 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B93%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE
Claude Opus 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B28.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Multilingual
Instruction following
IFEval
Claude Opus 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B92.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
ArXivMath Aug. 2026 (no tools)
Claude Opus 5.591.2%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
ArXivMath Aug. 2026 (tools)
Claude Opus 5.596.9%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
AIME26
Claude Opus 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B93.3%SourceNot directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2025
Claude Opus 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B94.8%SourceNot directly comparable
HMMT Nov 2025
Claude Opus 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B92.7%SourceNot directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2026
Claude Opus 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B87.9%SourceNot directly comparable
MMAnswerBench
Claude Opus 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B80.9%SourceNot directly comparable
84 public results · 1 shared
Watch Claude Opus 5.5 vs Qwen3.5 397B
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.
Last updated September 23, 2026