Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.5 vs Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
Head-to-head evidence from 18 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.5 #34 (Supported); Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) #53 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.5 and Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) share 18 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 41 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.5; 3 to Qwen 3.6 Max (preview).
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 18
- Claude Opus 4.5 only
- 41
- Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) only
- 3
- Comparable categories
- 4 / 8
Pick Claude Opus 4.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you need the larger 256K context window.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 18 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 4 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 4.5 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 64.22 to 59.72. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Opus 4.5's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 57.5 against 18.4. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 59.3% to 65.4%. Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) does hit back in knowledge, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude Opus 4.5 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. Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) gives you the larger context window at 256K, compared with 200K for Claude Opus 4.5.
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 4.5 | Δ | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Claude Opus 4.557.5 | Margin← 39.1 | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)18.4 |
| Coding | Claude Opus 4.571.7 | Margin← 20.7 | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)51.0 |
| Knowledge | Claude Opus 4.558.1 | Margin→ 15.8 | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)73.9 |
| Agentic | Claude Opus 4.562.6 | Margin→ 2.8 | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)65.4 |
| Reasoning | Claude Opus 4.564.4 | MarginNo overlap | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)Not measured |
| Multilingual | Claude Opus 4.585.7 | MarginNo overlap | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)Not measured |
| Multimodal | Claude Opus 4.569.9 | MarginNo overlap | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)Not measured |
| Inst. Following | Claude Opus 4.569.5 | MarginNo overlap | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)Not measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 59.3%B 65.4%Winner: Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)Δ 6.1Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Opus 4.5 scored 59.3%; Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) scored 65.4%. Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SuperGPQA
KnowledgeA 70.6%B 73.9%Winner: Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)Δ 3.3SuperGPQA: Claude Opus 4.5 scored 70.6%; Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) scored 73.9%. Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
MathA 20.690%B 23.103%Winner: Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)Δ 2.4FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): Claude Opus 4.5 scored 20.690%; Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) scored 23.103%. Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 57.1%B 57.3%Winner: Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)Δ 0.2SWE-bench Pro: Claude Opus 4.5 scored 57.1%; Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) scored 57.3%. Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.5 | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 4.5$5 input / $25 output | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)Not available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 4.546 tok/s | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 4.51.01 s | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 4.5200K | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)256K | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticQwen 3.6 Max (preview) wins17 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 59.3% | 65.4% | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 66.3% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorldSource | 66.3% | — | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | 59.6% | — | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | 52.3% | 59.0% | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | 70.2% | — | Not comparable |
| VITA-BenchSource | 23.3% | — | Not comparable |
| DeepPlanningSource | 26.4% | — | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | 43.5% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 42.3% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP-TasksSource | 71.8% | — | Not comparable |
| WideResearchSource | 76.4% | — | Not comparable |
| CyberGymSource | 50.6% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 86.3% | 95.9% | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 64.23% | — | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | 32.3% | — | Not comparable |
| QwenWebBenchSource | — | 1532 | Not comparable |
CodingClaude Opus 4.5 wins8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 80.9% | — | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBench v6Source | 84.8% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 57.1% | 57.3% | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 77.5% | — | Not comparable |
| NL2RepoSource | 43.2% | 42.9% | Claude Opus 4.5 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 47.0% | 46.9% | Claude Opus 4.5 leads |
| SciCodeSource | — | 47% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 65.4% | Not comparable |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
KnowledgeQwen 3.6 Max (preview) wins13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 87% | — | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | 70.6% | 73.9% | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads |
| MMLU-ProSource | 89.5% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ReduxSource | 96.6% | — | Not comparable |
| C-EvalSource | 92.2% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 30.8% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 34.7% | 40.0% | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 81.0% | 88.8% | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads |
| AA-HLESource | 12.9% | 28.9% | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -3.9% | 10.2% | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 40.7% | 37.7% | Claude Opus 4.5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 75.4% | 44.2% | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads |
| AA MMLU-ProSource | 88.9% | — | Not comparable |
MathClaude Opus 4.5 wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME26Source | 95.1% | — | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2025Source | 92.9% | — | Not comparable |
| HMMT Nov 2025Source | 93.3% | — | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | 85.3% | — | Not comparable |
| MMAnswerBenchSource | 84.0% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | 20.690% | 23.103% | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | 4.167% | 4.167% | Tie |
Multilingual2 benchmarks
Multimodal8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProSource | 70.6% | — | Not comparable |
| MathVisionSource | 74.3% | — | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | 68.5% | — | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | 84.4% | — | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | 45.7% | — | Not comparable |
| V*Source | 67.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 71.2% | — | Not comparable |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1277 | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (5)
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.5 or Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)?
Claude Opus 4.5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 64.22 to 59.72. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 59.3% and 65.4%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 4.5 or Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)?
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 73.9 versus 58.1. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.5 or Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)?
Claude Opus 4.5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 71.7 versus 51. Inside this category, NL2Repo is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, Claude Opus 4.5 or Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)?
Claude Opus 4.5 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 57.5 versus 18.4. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.5 or Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)?
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 65.4 versus 62.6. Inside this category, τ²-bench results is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.