Claude Opus 4.1vsQwen3.5
Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen3.5 | |
|---|---|---|
| Specifications | ||
Parameters | — | 397B |
Context window | — | 1M |
| Benchmarks | ||
Nonsense detection BullshitBench v2Given 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% | — |
Coding SWE-Bench VerifiedReal 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% | 76.4%Best |
Multilingual coding SWE-Bench MultilingualLike SWE-Bench, but the coding problems span many programming languages, not just one. Tests how broadly the AI can code. Higher is better. | — | 69.3% |
Agentic terminal coding Terminal-Bench 2.0Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? (Version 2.0 of the test.) Higher is better. | — | 52.5% |
Web browsing BrowseCompCan the AI browse the web and track down hard-to-find answers? Higher is better. | — | 69% |
Multidisciplinary reasoning Humanity's Last Exam · no toolsHumanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects, written so you can't just look up the answer. “No tools” means the AI answers on its own. Higher is better. | — | 28.7% |
Science GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 80.9% | 88.4%Best |
Agentic computer use OSWorld-VerifiedCan the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Higher is better. | — | 62.2% |
Chart reasoning CharXiv ReasoningCan the AI read and reason about complex charts and figures, not just text? Higher is better. | — | 80.8% |
Multimodal reasoning MMMU-ProA tougher version of MMMU — college-level questions that mix images, diagrams, and text together. Higher is better. | — | 79% |
Multimodal MMMUTests the AI on understanding images and text together across many college subjects. Higher is better. | — | 85% |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Anthropic | Qwen |
| Release date | Aug 5 2025 | Feb 16 2026 |
| Access | Proprietary | Open Weight |
Which is better: Claude Opus 4.1 or Qwen3.5?
Qwen3.5 leads Claude Opus 4.1 on 2 of the 2 benchmarks they both report (SWE-Bench Verified, GPQA Diamond). Claude Opus 4.1 shipped 195 days before Qwen3.5, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Claude Opus 4.1 is proprietary, while Qwen3.5 is open weight.
On SWE-Bench Verified, Qwen3.5 leads at 76.4% vs Claude Opus 4.1 at 74.5%. On GPQA Diamond, Qwen3.5 leads at 88.4% vs Claude Opus 4.1 at 80.9%.
Frequently asked questions
Claude Opus 4.1 was released by Anthropic on Aug 5 2025.
Qwen3.5 was released by Qwen on Feb 16 2026.
Qwen3.5 leads on SWE-Bench Verified — Claude Opus 4.1 74.5% vs Qwen3.5 76.4%.
Qwen3.5 leads on GPQA Diamond — Claude Opus 4.1 80.9% vs Qwen3.5 88.4%.
Claude Opus 4.1 is a proprietary model released by Anthropic. Qwen3.5 is an open weight model released by Qwen.