Model comparison
Claude Opus 5 vs Qwen3.5 397B
Head-to-head evidence from 19 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 5 #1 (Estimated); Qwen3.5 397B #77 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 5 and Qwen3.5 397B share 19 comparable benchmark results. 5 of 8 categories are comparable. 60 results are unique to Claude Opus 5; 36 to Qwen3.5 397B.
Updated July 24, 2026- Shared results
- 19
- Claude Opus 5 only
- 60
- Qwen3.5 397B only
- 36
- Comparable categories
- 5 / 8
Pick Claude Opus 5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.5 397B only becomes the better choice if multimodal & grounded is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 19 shared benchmark results across 5 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 5 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 85.88 to 56.26. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Opus 5's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 90.8 against 56.5. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HLE, 64.7% to 28.7%. Qwen3.5 397B does hit back in multimodal & grounded, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Claude Opus 5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.60 input / $3.60 output per 1M tokens for Qwen3.5 397B. That is roughly 6.9x on output cost alone. Claude Opus 5 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Qwen3.5 397B 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.
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 5 | Δ | Qwen3.5 397B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Claude Opus 590.8 | Margin← 34.3 | Qwen3.5 397B56.5 |
| Reasoning | Claude Opus 590.4 | Margin← 27.2 | Qwen3.5 397B63.2 |
| Coding | Claude Opus 589.5 | Margin← 23.0 | Qwen3.5 397B66.5 |
| Multimodal | Claude Opus 566.9 | Margin→ 12.7 | Qwen3.5 397B79.6 |
| Knowledge | Claude Opus 564.7 | Margin← 8.1 | Qwen3.5 397B56.6 |
| Math | Claude Opus 5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B90.6 |
| Multilingual | Claude Opus 5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B84.7 |
| Inst. Following | Claude Opus 5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B92.6 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
HLE
KnowledgeA 64.7%B 28.7%Winner: Claude Opus 5Δ 36HLE: Claude Opus 5 scored 64.7%; Qwen3.5 397B scored 28.7%. Claude Opus 5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
BrowseComp
AgenticA 90.8%B 62%Winner: Claude Opus 5Δ 28.8BrowseComp: Claude Opus 5 scored 90.8%; Qwen3.5 397B scored 62%. Claude Opus 5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 79.2%B 50.9%Winner: Claude Opus 5Δ 28.3SWE-bench Pro: Claude Opus 5 scored 79.2%; Qwen3.5 397B scored 50.9%. Claude Opus 5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 96%B 76.2%Winner: Claude Opus 5Δ 19.8SWE-bench Verified: Claude Opus 5 scored 96%; Qwen3.5 397B scored 76.2%. Claude Opus 5 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3.5 397B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 5$5 input / $25 output | Qwen3.5 397B$0.6 input / $3.6 output | Qwen3.5 397B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 5Not available | Qwen3.5 397B96 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 5Not available | Qwen3.5 397B2.44 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 5Not available | Qwen3.5 397B128K | A complete context comparison is not available. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticClaude Opus 5 wins37 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3.5 397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierBench v0.1Source | 43.3% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | 90.8% | 62% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| HLE w/ toolsSource | 64.7% | — | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | 95.0% | — | Not comparable |
| DRACOSource | 88.6% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseComp (10-agent, prerelease)Source | 93.6% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | 70.6% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 85.8% | 46.1% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| MCP-Atlas claim coverageSource | 89.1% | — | Not comparable |
| LAB all-pass (Anthropic harness)Source | 23.58% | — | Not comparable |
| LAB criterion-pass (Anthropic harness)Source | 93.74% | — | Not comparable |
| LAB all-pass (Harvey held-out)Source | 11.7% | — | Not comparable |
| LAB criterion-pass (Harvey held-out)Source | 94.1% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1861 | 962 | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| Toolathlon-VerifiedSource | 80.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Toolathlon Verified Pass@3Source | 87.0% | — | Not comparable |
| Toolathlon Verified Pass³Source | 73.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Toolathlon Verified avg. turnsSource | 23.5 turns | — | Not comparable |
| AutomationBenchSource | 26.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 55.3% | 19.9% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 68.0% | 23.1% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 30.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | 1720 | — | Not comparable |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | 89.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 52.5% | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 56.8% | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 51.8% | Not comparable |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | — | 68.4% | Not comparable |
| VITA-BenchSource | — | 43.7% | Not comparable |
| DeepPlanningSource | — | 37.6% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 36.3% | Not comparable |
| MCP-TasksSource | — | 74.2% | Not comparable |
| WideResearchSource | — | 74.0% | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 95.6% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 46.76% | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 14.2% | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 15.3% | Not comparable |
CodingClaude Opus 5 wins13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3.5 397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 96% | 76.2% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 79.2% | 50.9% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 89.5% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE MultimodalSource | 59.4% | — | Not comparable |
| deepSweSource | 68.8% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource | 53.4% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierCode 1.1 ExtendedSource | 63.6% | — | Not comparable |
| ProgramBench (episode 1)Source | 83.0% | — | Not comparable |
| ProgramBenchSource | 93.0% | — | Not comparable |
| cursorBench32Source | 70.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 78.0% | 48.2% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 55.7% | 42.0% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| LiveCodeBench v6Source | — | 83.6% | Not comparable |
ReasoningClaude Opus 5 wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3.5 397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-1Source | 97.50% | — | Not comparable |
| ARC-AGI-2Source | 90.4% | — | Not comparable |
| ARC-AGI-3Source | 30.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-LCRSource | 70.0% | 65.7% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| CritPtSource | 29.1% | 1.7% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| LongBench v2Source | — | 63.2% | Not comparable |
| AI-NeedleSource | — | 68.7% | Not comparable |
KnowledgeClaude Opus 5 wins26 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3.5 397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| HLESource | 64.7% | 28.7% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 56.3% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench (raw)Source | 67.1% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench (length-adjusted)Source | 57.8% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench ProfessionalSource | 59.8% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench Professional (raw)Source | 73.4% | — | Not comparable |
| BioMysteryBench (human-solvable)Source | 90.1% | — | Not comparable |
| BioMysteryBench (human-difficult)Source | 49.4% | — | Not comparable |
| SpatialBench VerifiedSource | 72.5% | — | Not comparable |
| SingleCellBenchSource | 60.6% | — | Not comparable |
| ProteinGym HardSource | 47.7% | — | Not comparable |
| Protein DesignSource | 42.5% | — | Not comparable |
| Organic chemistry V2Source | 61.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Protocols (troubleshooting)Source | 61.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Protocols (understanding)Source | 78.4% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 60.7% | 33.7% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 93.2% | 89.3% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 52.6% | 27.3% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 31.3% | -29.8% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 54.2% | 31.4% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 50.1% | 89.1% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| GPQASource | — | 88.4% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 70.4% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 87.8% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ReduxSource | — | 94.9% | Not comparable |
| C-EvalSource | — | 93% | Not comparable |
Math10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3.5 397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| IMO 2026Source | 42/42 | — | Not comparable |
| RiemannBench (no tools)Source | 60.0% | — | Not comparable |
| RiemannBench (tools)Source | 79.0% | — | Not comparable |
| ArXivMath Jun. 2026 (no tools)Source | 90.8% | — | Not comparable |
| ArXivMath Jun. 2026 (tools)Source | 91.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AIME26Source | — | 93.3% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2025Source | — | 94.8% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Nov 2025Source | — | 92.7% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | — | 87.9% | Not comparable |
| MMAnswerBenchSource | — | 80.9% | Not comparable |
Multilingual5 benchmarks
MultimodalQwen3.5 397B wins15 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3.5 397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chartography (no tools)Source | 29.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Chartography (tools)Source | 83.0% | — | Not comparable |
| BenchCAD Vision2Code (no tools)Source | 0.366 | — | Not comparable |
| BenchCAD Vision2Code (tools)Source | 0.821 | — | Not comparable |
| GDP.pdf (no tools)Source | 83.4% | — | Not comparable |
| GDP.pdf (tools)Source | 85.5% | — | Not comparable |
| OfficeQASource | 78.1% | — | Not comparable |
| OfficeQA ProSource | 66.9% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 84.7% | 77.3% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 79% | Not comparable |
| MathVisionSource | — | 88.6% | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 80.8% | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | — | 84.7% | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | — | 65.6% | Not comparable |
| V*Source | — | 95.8% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (6)
Which is better, Claude Opus 5 or Qwen3.5 397B?
Claude Opus 5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 85.88 to 56.26. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 64.7% and 28.7%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 5 or Qwen3.5 397B?
Claude Opus 5 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 64.7 versus 56.6. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 5 or Qwen3.5 397B?
Claude Opus 5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 89.5 versus 66.5. Inside this category, AA Coding Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for reasoning, Claude Opus 5 or Qwen3.5 397B?
Claude Opus 5 has the edge for reasoning in this comparison, averaging 90.4 versus 63.2. Inside this category, CritPt is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 5 or Qwen3.5 397B?
Claude Opus 5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 90.8 versus 56.5. 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 5 or Qwen3.5 397B?
Qwen3.5 397B has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 79.6 versus 66.9. Inside this category, AA-MMMU-Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.