ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

Claude Opus 5 vs Qwen3.6 Max Preview

Claude Opus 5 comes out ahead, 66 to 54 on our weighted score, though Qwen3.6 Max Preview is 3.4× cheaper per token.

  1. Our pick

    Anthropic

    Claude Opus 5

    Released Jul 24, 2026

    66/100
    • ECI162.9
    • Price$5.00 / $25.00
    • Context1M
    Full specs Remove Claude Opus 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

Claude Opus 5 is our pick

Claude Opus 5 is the better all-round choice, scoring 66/100 against Qwen3.6 Max Preview (54). It leads on capability, inputs & features and context window. Qwen3.6 Max Preview wins on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

  • CapabilityClaude Opus 5Capabilities Index (ECI): Claude Opus 5 162.9 · Qwen3.6 Max Preview 149.2
  • Lowest priceQwen3.6 Max PreviewQwen3.6 Max Preview $2.92 · Claude Opus 5 $10.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextClaude Opus 5Claude Opus 5 1,000,000 · Qwen3.6 Max Preview 262,144 tokens
  • Widest inputsClaude Opus 5Claude Opus 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 5Qwen3.6 Max Preview
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%9477
Price25%228
Inputs & features15%8035
Context window10%6037
Overall100%66/10054/100
02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

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

Claude Opus 5 vs Qwen3.6 Max Preview specifications side by side
SpecificationClaude Opus 5AnthropicQwen3.6 Max PreviewAlibaba (Qwen)
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)162.9 (best)149.2
ECI rank#5 of 148 (best)#54 of 148
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions93.9% (best)87.4%
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics85.6%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics98.9% (best)91.1%
SWE-bench VerifiedFixing real GitHub issues—76.7%
SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions59.9% (best)52.0%
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 window1,000,000 tokens (best)262,144 tokens
Max output128,000 tokens (best)65,536 tokens
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesYesNo
PDFsYesNo
AudioNoNo
VideoNoNo
ReasoningYeslow · medium · high · xhigh · maxYes
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputYesNo
Availability
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
API model IDclaude-opus-5qwen3.6-max-preview
API providers35 (best)10
ReleasedJul 24, 2026Apr 20, 2026
Knowledge cutoffMay 2026Apr 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 5$100.00
  • Qwen3.6 Max Preview$28.60
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Claude Opus 5 or Qwen3.6 Max Preview?

Claude Opus 5 is the better all-round choice, scoring 66/100 against Qwen3.6 Max Preview (54). It leads on capability, inputs & features and context window. Qwen3.6 Max Preview wins on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 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 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 5 (3.4× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

Claude Opus 5 scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): Claude Opus 5 162.9 (#5 of 148) and Qwen3.6 Max Preview 149.2 (#54 of 148). Their confidence ranges do not overlap (160.2–166.7 vs 147.6–152.0), so the gap is a real one. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — Claude Opus 5 93.9%, Qwen3.6 Max Preview 87.4%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — Claude Opus 5 98.9%, Qwen3.6 Max Preview 91.1%; SimpleQA Verified — Claude Opus 5 59.9%, Qwen3.6 Max Preview 52.0%.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Claude Opus 5 yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, Claude Opus 5 leads, which tends to carry over to coding, but test on your own codebase. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 5 has the largest context window at 1,000,000 tokens, against 262,144 for Qwen3.6 Max Preview. Maximum output per response: Claude Opus 5 up to 128,000, Qwen3.6 Max Preview up to 65,536 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Claude Opus 5 accepts text, images and PDFs; Qwen3.6 Max Preview accepts text. Claude Opus 5 handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

No. Claude Opus 5 and Qwen3.6 Max Preview are proprietary and only available through APIs and apps.

Which is newer?

Claude Opus 5 is the newest, released Jul 24, 2026. Qwen3.6 Max Preview came out Apr 20, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: Claude Opus 5 May 2026, 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