Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.5 vs Qwen3.6 Plus
Head-to-head evidence from 53 shared benchmark results across 8 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.5 #34 (Supported); Qwen3.6 Plus #30 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.5 and Qwen3.6 Plus share 53 comparable benchmark results. 8 of 8 categories are comparable. 6 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.5; 7 to Qwen3.6 Plus.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 53
- Claude Opus 4.5 only
- 6
- Qwen3.6 Plus only
- 7
- Comparable categories
- 8 / 8
Pick Qwen3.6 Plus if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Opus 4.5 only becomes the better choice if reasoning is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Why this result
Qwen3.6 Plus has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 65.2 versus 64.22. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.
Qwen3.6 Plus's sharpest advantage is in instruction following, where it averages 82.3 against 69.5. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is IFBench, 58% to 75.8%. Claude Opus 4.5 does hit back in reasoning, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Qwen3.6 Plus 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. Qwen3.6 Plus gives you the larger context window at 1M, 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 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|---|
| Inst. Following | Claude Opus 4.569.5 | Margin→ 12.8 | Qwen3.6 Plus82.3 |
| Multimodal | Claude Opus 4.569.9 | Margin→ 9.9 | Qwen3.6 Plus79.8 |
| Math | Claude Opus 4.557.5 | Margin→ 3.0 | Qwen3.6 Plus60.5 |
| Reasoning | Claude Opus 4.564.4 | Margin← 2.4 | Qwen3.6 Plus62.0 |
| Coding | Claude Opus 4.571.7 | Margin← 1.4 | Qwen3.6 Plus70.3 |
| Agentic | Claude Opus 4.562.6 | Margin← 1.0 | Qwen3.6 Plus61.6 |
| Knowledge | Claude Opus 4.558.1 | Margin← 1.0 | Qwen3.6 Plus57.1 |
| Multilingual | Claude Opus 4.585.7 | Margin← 1.0 | Qwen3.6 Plus84.7 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
IFBench
Inst. FollowingA 58%B 75.8%Winner: Qwen3.6 PlusΔ 17.8IFBench: Claude Opus 4.5 scored 58%; Qwen3.6 Plus scored 75.8%. Qwen3.6 Plus wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
CharXiv
MultimodalA 68.5%B 81.5%Winner: Qwen3.6 PlusΔ 13CharXiv: Claude Opus 4.5 scored 68.5%; Qwen3.6 Plus scored 81.5%. Qwen3.6 Plus wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
MMMU-Pro
MultimodalA 70.6%B 78.8%Winner: Qwen3.6 PlusΔ 8.2MMMU-Pro: Claude Opus 4.5 scored 70.6%; Qwen3.6 Plus scored 78.8%. Qwen3.6 Plus wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
MathA 20.690%B 26.207%Winner: Qwen3.6 PlusΔ 5.5FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): Claude Opus 4.5 scored 20.690%; Qwen3.6 Plus scored 26.207%. Qwen3.6 Plus wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
MathA 4.167%B 8.333%Winner: Qwen3.6 PlusΔ 4.2FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): Claude Opus 4.5 scored 4.167%; Qwen3.6 Plus scored 8.333%. Qwen3.6 Plus 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 | Qwen3.6 Plus | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 4.5$5 input / $25 output | Qwen3.6 PlusNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 4.546 tok/s | Qwen3.6 PlusNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 4.51.01 s | Qwen3.6 PlusNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 4.5200K | Qwen3.6 Plus1M | Qwen3.6 Plus lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticClaude Opus 4.5 wins20 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Qwen3.6 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 59.3% | 61.6% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 66.3% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorldSource | 66.3% | — | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | 59.6% | 58.8% | Claude Opus 4.5 leads |
| QwenClawBenchSource | 52.3% | 57.2% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | 70.2% | 70.7% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| VITA-BenchSource | 23.3% | 44.3% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| DeepPlanningSource | 26.4% | 41.5% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| ToolathlonSource | 43.5% | 39.8% | Claude Opus 4.5 leads |
| MCP AtlasSource | 42.3% | 48.2% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| MCP-TasksSource | 71.8% | 74.1% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| WideResearchSource | 76.4% | 74.3% | Claude Opus 4.5 leads |
| CyberGymSource | 50.6% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 86.3% | 97.7% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 64.23% | 50.60% | Claude Opus 4.5 leads |
| JobBenchSource | 32.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 27.6% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 31.8% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1135 | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 18.0% | Not comparable |
CodingClaude Opus 4.5 wins8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Qwen3.6 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 80.9% | 78.8% | Claude Opus 4.5 leads |
| LiveCodeBench v6Source | 84.8% | 87.1% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 57.1% | 56.6% | Claude Opus 4.5 leads |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 77.5% | 73.8% | Claude Opus 4.5 leads |
| NL2RepoSource | 43.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 47.0% | 40.7% | Claude Opus 4.5 leads |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | — | 25.56% | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 54.5% | Not comparable |
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.5 wins4 benchmarks
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.5 wins13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Qwen3.6 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 87% | 90.4% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| SuperGPQASource | 70.6% | 71.6% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| MMLU-ProSource | 89.5% | 88.5% | Claude Opus 4.5 leads |
| MMLU-ReduxSource | 96.6% | 94.5% | Claude Opus 4.5 leads |
| C-EvalSource | 92.2% | 93.3% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| HLESource | 30.8% | 28.8% | Claude Opus 4.5 leads |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 34.7% | 39.6% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 81.0% | 88.2% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| AA-HLESource | 12.9% | 25.7% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -3.9% | 2.7% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 40.7% | 26.2% | Claude Opus 4.5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 75.4% | 32.0% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| AA MMLU-ProSource | 88.9% | — | Not comparable |
MathQwen3.6 Plus wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Qwen3.6 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME26Source | 95.1% | 95.3% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| HMMT Feb 2025Source | 92.9% | 96.7% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| HMMT Nov 2025Source | 93.3% | 94.6% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | 85.3% | 87.8% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| MMAnswerBenchSource | 84.0% | 83.8% | Claude Opus 4.5 leads |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | 20.690% | 26.207% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | 4.167% | 8.333% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
MultilingualClaude Opus 4.5 wins2 benchmarks
MultimodalQwen3.6 Plus wins9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Qwen3.6 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProSource | 70.6% | 78.8% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| MathVisionSource | 74.3% | 88.0% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| CharXivSource | 68.5% | 81.5% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| VideoMMMUSource | 84.4% | 84.0% | Claude Opus 4.5 leads |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | 45.7% | 68.2% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| V*Source | 67.0% | 96.9% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 71.2% | 78.0% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1277 | 1249 | Claude Opus 4.5 leads |
| MMMUSource | — | 86.0% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (9)
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.5 or Qwen3.6 Plus?
Qwen3.6 Plus is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 65.2 to 64.22. The biggest single separator in this matchup is IFBench, where the scores are 58% and 75.8%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 4.5 or Qwen3.6 Plus?
Claude Opus 4.5 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 58.1 versus 57.1. 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 Qwen3.6 Plus?
Claude Opus 4.5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 71.7 versus 70.3. Inside this category, AA-SciCode is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, Claude Opus 4.5 or Qwen3.6 Plus?
Qwen3.6 Plus has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 60.5 versus 57.5. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for reasoning, Claude Opus 4.5 or Qwen3.6 Plus?
Claude Opus 4.5 has the edge for reasoning in this comparison, averaging 64.4 versus 62. Inside this category, AI-Needle is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.5 or Qwen3.6 Plus?
Claude Opus 4.5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 62.6 versus 61.6. Inside this category, VITA-Bench is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Opus 4.5 or Qwen3.6 Plus?
Qwen3.6 Plus has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 79.8 versus 69.9. Inside this category, V* is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for instruction following, Claude Opus 4.5 or Qwen3.6 Plus?
Qwen3.6 Plus has the edge for instruction following in this comparison, averaging 82.3 versus 69.5. Inside this category, AA-IFBench is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for multilingual tasks, Claude Opus 4.5 or Qwen3.6 Plus?
Claude Opus 4.5 has the edge for multilingual tasks in this comparison, averaging 85.7 versus 84.7. Inside this category, NOVA-63 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.