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. | — | $0.0482StreamLake |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | — | $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. | 34% | 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. | 72.5% | — |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 79.6% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Anthropic | Qwen |
| Release date | May 22 2025 | Apr 29 2025 |
| Access | Closed | Open Weight |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Claude Opus 4vsGPT-6.1 SolQwen3vsGPT-6.1 SolClaude Opus 4vsGemini 4 ArgonQwen3vsGemini 4 ArgonClaude Opus 4vsMuse Spark 1.3Qwen3vsMuse Spark 1.3Claude Opus 4vsGrok 4.7Qwen3vsGrok 4.7Claude Opus 4vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashQwen3vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashClaude Opus 4vsMistral Large 4Qwen3vsMistral Large 4Frequently asked questions
Claude Opus 4 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. Qwen3 shipped 23 days before Claude Opus 4, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Claude Opus 4 is closed, while Qwen3 is open weight.
On BullshitBench v2, Claude Opus 4 leads at 34% vs Qwen3 at 6%.