Compare AI models
| Specifications | ||
ParametersA rough measure of how big the model is. More parameters usually means more capable and more expensive to run, though it is a poor guide on its own — a smaller, newer model often beats a larger, older one. | — | 235B |
Context windowHow much text the model can hold in mind at once — your question, any documents you attach, the conversation so far, and its own reply. Go past it and the earliest part falls out of view. | — | 128k |
| API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins · base tier | ||
Input priceWhat you pay for everything you send the model — your question, plus any documents or earlier conversation you include with it. | — | $0.70 |
Output priceWhat you pay for the text the model writes back. It is normally the dearer half: producing an answer costs more than reading one. | — | $2.80 |
Cheapest inputLowest input rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. The cheapest endpoint may run a quantised build or a shorter context — see "Available from" on the model page. | $15.00Amazon Bedrock | $0.0482StreamLake |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $75.00Amazon Bedrock | $0.1931StreamLake |
| Benchmarks | ||
BullshitBench v2Nonsense detection — Given a confidently-worded but nonsensical prompt, does the AI spot that it makes no sense and push back — instead of playing along and inventing an answer? The score is how often it clearly called out the nonsense. Higher is better. | 43% | 6% |
SWE-Bench VerifiedCoding — Real coding tasks pulled from open-source projects — the AI has to find and fix actual bugs. A human-checked version of the original SWE-Bench. Higher is better. | 74.5% | — |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 80.9% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Anthropic | Qwen |
| Release date | Aug 5 2025 | Apr 29 2025 |
| Access | Closed | Open Weight |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Claude Opus 4.1vsGPT-6.1 SolQwen3vsGPT-6.1 SolClaude Opus 4.1vsGemini 4 ArgonQwen3vsGemini 4 ArgonClaude Opus 4.1vsMuse Spark 1.3Qwen3vsMuse Spark 1.3Claude Opus 4.1vsGrok 4.7Qwen3vsGrok 4.7Claude Opus 4.1vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashQwen3vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashClaude Opus 4.1vsMistral Large 4Qwen3vsMistral Large 4Frequently asked questions
Claude Opus 4.1 leads Qwen3 on 1 of the 1 benchmark they both report (BullshitBench v2). Only Qwen3 has a verified first-party API price: $0.70 per million input tokens and $2.80 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Claude Opus 4.1. Qwen3 shipped 98 days before Claude Opus 4.1, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Claude Opus 4.1 is closed, while Qwen3 is open weight.
On BullshitBench v2, Claude Opus 4.1 leads at 43% vs Qwen3 at 6%.