Claude Opus 4vsQwen3.5
Claude Opus 4 | 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. | 34% | — |
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. | 72.5% | 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. | 79.6% | 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 | May 22 2025 | Feb 16 2026 |
| Access | Proprietary | Open Weight |
Which is better: Claude Opus 4 or Qwen3.5?
Qwen3.5 leads Claude Opus 4 on 2 of the 2 benchmarks they both report (SWE-Bench Verified, GPQA Diamond). Claude Opus 4 shipped 270 days before Qwen3.5, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Claude Opus 4 is proprietary, while Qwen3.5 is open weight.
On SWE-Bench Verified, Qwen3.5 leads at 76.4% vs Claude Opus 4 at 72.5%. On GPQA Diamond, Qwen3.5 leads at 88.4% vs Claude Opus 4 at 79.6%.
Frequently asked questions
Claude Opus 4 was released by Anthropic on May 22 2025.
Qwen3.5 was released by Qwen on Feb 16 2026.
Qwen3.5 leads on SWE-Bench Verified — Claude Opus 4 72.5% vs Qwen3.5 76.4%.
Qwen3.5 leads on GPQA Diamond — Claude Opus 4 79.6% vs Qwen3.5 88.4%.
Claude Opus 4 is a proprietary model released by Anthropic. Qwen3.5 is an open weight model released by Qwen.