ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

Claude Opus 4.1 vs Qwen3.6 Max Preview

Qwen3.6 Max Preview comes out ahead, 54 to 49 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.

  1. Anthropic

    Claude Opus 4.1

    Released Aug 5, 2025

    49/100
    • ECI144.1
    • Price$15.00 / $75.00
    • Context200K
    Full specs Remove Claude Opus 4.1
  2. Our pick

    Alibaba (Qwen)

    Qwen3.6 Max Preview

    Released Apr 20, 2026

    54/100
    • ECI149.2
    • Price$1.30 / $7.80
    • Context262K
    Full specs Remove Qwen3.6 Max Preview

  3. Add a model

    Make it a three-way comparison.

01 — Verdict

Qwen3.6 Max Preview is our pick

Qwen3.6 Max Preview is the better all-round choice, scoring 54/100 against Claude Opus 4.1 (49). It leads on capability, price and context window. Claude Opus 4.1 wins on inputs & features. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

  • CapabilityQwen3.6 Max PreviewCapabilities Index (ECI): Qwen3.6 Max Preview 149.2 · Claude Opus 4.1 144.1
  • Lowest priceQwen3.6 Max PreviewQwen3.6 Max Preview $2.92 · Claude Opus 4.1 $30.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextQwen3.6 Max PreviewQwen3.6 Max Preview 262,144 · Claude Opus 4.1 200,000 tokens
  • Widest inputsClaude Opus 4.1Claude Opus 4.1: Text, Images, PDFs · Qwen3.6 Max Preview: Text
  • Self-hostingNo open weightsBoth are available only through APIs
How the score is built
MeasureWeightClaude Opus 4.1Qwen3.6 Max Preview
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%7177
Price25%028
Inputs & features15%7035
Context window10%3237
Overall100%49/10054/100
02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.

Claude Opus 4.1 vs Qwen3.6 Max Preview specifications side by side
SpecificationClaude Opus 4.1AnthropicQwen3.6 Max PreviewAlibaba (Qwen)
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)144.1149.2 (best)
ECI rank#81 of 148#54 of 148 (best)
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions77.3%87.4% (best)
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics12.6%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics68.9%91.1% (best)
SWE-bench VerifiedFixing real GitHub issues73.4%76.7% (best)
SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions—52.0%
Price per million tokens
Input$15.00$1.30 (best)
Output$75.00$7.80 (best)
Cached input—$0.13
Blended (3:1)$30.00$2.92 (best)
Long-context rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceMedian of 14 providersOfficial Alibaba API
Limits
Context window200,000 tokens262,144 tokens (best)
Max output32,000 tokens65,536 tokens (best)
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesYesNo
PDFsYesNo
AudioNoNo
VideoNoNo
ReasoningYesYes
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputNoNo
Availability
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
API model ID—qwen3.6-max-preview
API providers14 (best)10
ReleasedAug 5, 2025Apr 20, 2026
Knowledge cutoffMar 31, 2025Apr 2025
03 — Cost

What would a month cost?

Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.

  • Claude Opus 4.1$300.00
  • Qwen3.6 Max Preview$28.60
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Claude Opus 4.1 or Qwen3.6 Max Preview?

Qwen3.6 Max Preview is the better all-round choice, scoring 54/100 against Claude Opus 4.1 (49). It leads on capability, price and context window. Claude Opus 4.1 wins on inputs & features. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.1 or Qwen3.6 Max Preview?

Qwen3.6 Max Preview is cheaper at $1.30 input / $7.80 output per million tokens (official Alibaba API price). Claude Opus 4.1 costs $15.00 input / $75.00 output per million tokens (median across 14 API providers). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $2.92 per million tokens for Qwen3.6 Max Preview versus $30.00 for Claude Opus 4.1 (10× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

Qwen3.6 Max Preview scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): Qwen3.6 Max Preview 149.2 (#54 of 148) and Claude Opus 4.1 144.1 (#81 of 148). Their confidence ranges do not overlap (147.6–152.0 vs 141.6–146.0), so the gap is a real one. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — Qwen3.6 Max Preview 87.4%, Claude Opus 4.1 77.3%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — Qwen3.6 Max Preview 91.1%, Claude Opus 4.1 68.9%; SWE-bench Verified — Qwen3.6 Max Preview 76.7%, Claude Opus 4.1 73.4%.

Which is better for coding?

Qwen3.6 Max Preview resolves more real GitHub issues on SWE-bench Verified: Qwen3.6 Max Preview 76.7% and Claude Opus 4.1 73.4%. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.6 Max Preview has the largest context window at 262,144 tokens, against 200,000 for Claude Opus 4.1. Maximum output per response: Claude Opus 4.1 up to 32,000, Qwen3.6 Max Preview up to 65,536 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Claude Opus 4.1 accepts text, images and PDFs; Qwen3.6 Max Preview accepts text. Claude Opus 4.1 handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

No. Claude Opus 4.1 and Qwen3.6 Max Preview are proprietary and only available through APIs and apps.

Which is newer?

Qwen3.6 Max Preview is the newest, released Apr 20, 2026. Claude Opus 4.1 came out Aug 5, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Claude Opus 4.1 Mar 31, 2025, Qwen3.6 Max Preview Apr 2025.

How do you decide the winner?

Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Oct 4, 2026.

05 — Keep comparing

Related comparisons