ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

Qwen3.6 Max Preview vs Claude Opus 5

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. 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
  2. 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

  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 5Qwen3.6 Max Preview: Text · Claude Opus 5: Text, Images, PDFs
  • Self-hostingNo open weightsBoth are available only through APIs
How the score is built
MeasureWeightQwen3.6 Max PreviewClaude Opus 5
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%7794
Price25%282
Inputs & features15%3580
Context window10%3760
Overall100%54/10066/100
02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

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

Qwen3.6 Max Preview vs Claude Opus 5 specifications side by side
SpecificationQwen3.6 Max PreviewAlibaba (Qwen)Claude Opus 5Anthropic
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)149.2162.9 (best)
ECI rank#54 of 148#5 of 148 (best)
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions87.4%93.9% (best)
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics—85.6%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics91.1%98.9% (best)
SWE-bench VerifiedFixing real GitHub issues76.7%—
SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions52.0%59.9% (best)
Price per million tokens
Input$1.30 (best)$5.00
Output$7.80 (best)$25.00
Cached input$0.13 (best)$0.50
Blended (3:1)$2.92 (best)$10.00
Long-context rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceOfficial Alibaba APIOfficial Anthropic API
Limits
Context window262,144 tokens1,000,000 tokens (best)
Max output65,536 tokens128,000 tokens (best)
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesNoYes
PDFsNoYes
AudioNoNo
VideoNoNo
ReasoningYesYeslow · medium · high · xhigh · max
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputNoYes
Availability
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
API model IDqwen3.6-max-previewclaude-opus-5
API providers1035 (best)
ReleasedApr 20, 2026Jul 24, 2026
Knowledge cutoffApr 2025May 2026
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.

  • Qwen3.6 Max Preview$28.60
  • Claude Opus 5$100.00
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

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

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, Qwen3.6 Max Preview or Claude Opus 5?

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: Qwen3.6 Max Preview up to 65,536, Claude Opus 5 up to 128,000 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

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

Are any of these open source?

No. Qwen3.6 Max Preview and Claude Opus 5 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: Qwen3.6 Max Preview Apr 2025, Claude Opus 5 May 2026.

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