ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

Claude Opus 4.5 vs Qwen3.6 Max Preview

Too close to call on our weighted score (Claude Opus 4.5 55, Qwen3.6 Max Preview 54). The right pick depends on what you value most.

  1. Anthropic

    Claude Opus 4.5

    Released Nov 24, 2025

    55/100
    • ECI150.1
    • Price$5.00 / $25.00
    • Context200K
    Full specs Remove Claude Opus 4.5

  2. 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

Too close to call

It is close. Our weighted score puts them within a point (Claude Opus 4.5 55/100, Qwen3.6 Max Preview 54/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Claude Opus 4.5 for raw capability, Qwen3.6 Max Preview on price and Qwen3.6 Max Preview for long inputs. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

  • CapabilityClaude Opus 4.5Capabilities Index (ECI): Claude Opus 4.5 150.1 · Qwen3.6 Max Preview 149.2
  • Lowest priceQwen3.6 Max PreviewQwen3.6 Max Preview $2.92 · Claude Opus 4.5 $10.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextQwen3.6 Max PreviewQwen3.6 Max Preview 262,144 · Claude Opus 4.5 200,000 tokens
  • Widest inputsClaude Opus 4.5Claude Opus 4.5: Text, Images, PDFs · Qwen3.6 Max Preview: Text
  • Self-hostingNo open weightsBoth are available only through APIs
How the score is built
MeasureWeightClaude Opus 4.5Qwen3.6 Max Preview
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%7877
Price25%228
Inputs & features15%8035
Context window10%3237
Overall100%55/10054/100
02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

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

Claude Opus 4.5 vs Qwen3.6 Max Preview specifications side by side
SpecificationClaude Opus 4.5AnthropicQwen3.6 Max PreviewAlibaba (Qwen)
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)150.1 (best)149.2
ECI rank#48 of 148 (best)#54 of 148
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions86.1%87.4% (best)
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics34.4%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics86.1%91.1% (best)
SWE-bench VerifiedFixing real GitHub issues76.7%76.7%
SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions45.7%52.0% (best)
Price per million tokens
Input$5.00$1.30 (best)
Output$25.00$7.80 (best)
Cached input$0.50$0.13 (best)
Blended (3:1)$10.00$2.92 (best)
Long-context rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceOfficial Anthropic APIOfficial Alibaba API
Limits
Context window200,000 tokens262,144 tokens (best)
Max output64,000 tokens65,536 tokens (best)
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesYesNo
PDFsYesNo
AudioNoNo
VideoNoNo
ReasoningYeslow · medium · highYes
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputYesNo
Availability
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
API model IDclaude-opus-4-5qwen3.6-max-preview
API providers28 (best)10
ReleasedNov 24, 2025Apr 20, 2026
Knowledge cutoffMay 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 4.5$100.00
  • Qwen3.6 Max Preview$28.60
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Claude Opus 4.5 or Qwen3.6 Max Preview?

It is close. Our weighted score puts them within a point (Claude Opus 4.5 55/100, Qwen3.6 Max Preview 54/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Claude Opus 4.5 for raw capability, Qwen3.6 Max Preview on price and Qwen3.6 Max Preview for long inputs. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.5 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 4.5 costs $5.00 input / $25.00 output per million tokens (official Anthropic API price). 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 $10.00 for Claude Opus 4.5 (3.4× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

Claude Opus 4.5 scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): Claude Opus 4.5 150.1 (#48 of 148) and Qwen3.6 Max Preview 149.2 (#54 of 148). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (147.9–153.0 vs 147.6–152.0), so treat the gap as small. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — Qwen3.6 Max Preview 87.4%, Claude Opus 4.5 86.1%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — Qwen3.6 Max Preview 91.1%, Claude Opus 4.5 86.1%; SWE-bench Verified — Claude Opus 4.5 76.7%, Qwen3.6 Max Preview 76.7%; SimpleQA Verified — Qwen3.6 Max Preview 52.0%, Claude Opus 4.5 45.7%.

Which is better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.5 resolves more real GitHub issues on SWE-bench Verified: Claude Opus 4.5 76.7% and Qwen3.6 Max Preview 76.7%. 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 4.5. Maximum output per response: Claude Opus 4.5 up to 64,000, Qwen3.6 Max Preview up to 65,536 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Claude Opus 4.5 accepts text, images and PDFs; Qwen3.6 Max Preview accepts text. Claude Opus 4.5 handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

No. Claude Opus 4.5 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 4.5 came out Nov 24, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Claude Opus 4.5 May 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