Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.8 vs Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
Head-to-head evidence from 16 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.8 #5 (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 4.8 and Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) share 16 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 37 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.8; 5 to Qwen 3.6 Max (preview).
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 16
- Claude Opus 4.8 only
- 37
- Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) only
- 5
- Comparable categories
- 4 / 8
Pick Claude Opus 4.8 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 16 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 4.8 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 78.34 to 59.72. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Opus 4.8's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 53.9 against 18.4. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4), 31.250% to 4.167%. 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.
Claude Opus 4.8 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 256K for Qwen 3.6 Max (preview).
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 4.8 | Δ | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Claude Opus 4.853.9 | Margin← 35.5 | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)18.4 |
| Coding | Claude Opus 4.881.1 | Margin← 30.1 | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)51.0 |
| Agentic | Claude Opus 4.880.3 | Margin← 14.9 | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)65.4 |
| Knowledge | Claude Opus 4.862.7 | Margin→ 11.2 | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)73.9 |
| Multimodal | Claude Opus 4.877.0 | 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 ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
MathA 31.250%B 4.167%Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 27.1FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): Claude Opus 4.8 scored 31.250%; Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) scored 4.167%. Claude Opus 4.8 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
MathA 47.241%B 23.103%Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 24.1FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): Claude Opus 4.8 scored 47.241%; Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) scored 23.103%. Claude Opus 4.8 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 69.2%B 57.3%Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 11.9SWE-bench Pro: Claude Opus 4.8 scored 69.2%; Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) scored 57.3%. Claude Opus 4.8 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 74.6%B 65.4%Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 9.2Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Opus 4.8 scored 74.6%; Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) scored 65.4%. Claude Opus 4.8 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.8 | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 4.8$5 input / $25 output | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)Not available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 4.8Not available | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 4.8Not available | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 4.81M | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)256K | Claude Opus 4.8 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticClaude Opus 4.8 wins23 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 74.6% | 65.4% | 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 | 1594 | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 82.2% | — | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | 59.9% | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 72.97% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 47.2% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 94.4% | 95.9% | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 54.7% | — | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 21.1% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | 20.6% | — | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | 1347 | — | Not comparable |
| AA AutomationBenchSource | 48.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | 44.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | 91.1% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 27.6% | — | Not comparable |
| terminalBenchHardSource | 58.3% | — | Not comparable |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | 84.6% | — | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 59.0% | Not comparable |
| QwenWebBenchSource | — | 1532 | Not comparable |
CodingClaude Opus 4.8 wins12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 88.6% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 69.2% | 57.3% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 84.4% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE MultimodalSource | 38.4% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 74.6% | 65.4% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| cursorBench31Source | 58.4% | — | Not comparable |
| cursorBench32Source | 62.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 74.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 53.5% | 46.9% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource | 46.5% | — | Not comparable |
| SciCodeSource | — | 47% | Not comparable |
| NL2RepoSource | — | 42.9% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
KnowledgeQwen 3.6 Max (preview) wins11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 93.6% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | 93.6% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 57.9% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 49.8% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 55.7% | 40.0% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 92.0% | 88.8% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 45.7% | 28.9% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 27.4% | 10.2% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 46.6% | 37.7% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 35.9% | 44.2% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 73.9% | Not comparable |
MathClaude Opus 4.8 wins3 benchmarks
Multilingual1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| INCLUDESource | 87.6% | — | Not comparable |
Multimodal5 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 62.2% | 76.6% | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (5)
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.8 or Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)?
Claude Opus 4.8 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 78.34 to 59.72. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4), where the scores are 31.250% and 4.167%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 4.8 or Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)?
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 73.9 versus 62.7. 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 Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)?
Claude Opus 4.8 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 81.1 versus 51. Inside this category, SWE-bench Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, Claude Opus 4.8 or Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)?
Claude Opus 4.8 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 53.9 versus 18.4. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.8 or Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)?
Claude Opus 4.8 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 80.3 versus 65.4. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 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.