Claude Opus 4.6 vs Qwen 2.5 72B
Side-by-side benchmark comparison across coding, math, reasoning, speed, and pricing.
Claude Opus 4.6 by Anthropic wins on 10 of 14 benchmarks against Qwen 2.5 72B by Qwen, which leads on 4. This head-to-head comparison covers coding, math, reasoning, speed, and pricing metrics from the AI Value Index.
Category-by-Category Breakdown
General Intelligence: In general intelligence, Claude Opus 4.6 scores 1496 on Chatbot Arena ELO compared to Qwen 2.5 72B's 1230, while Claude Opus 4.6 scores 82.0% on MMLU-Pro compared to Qwen 2.5 72B's 72.0%.
Coding: In coding, Claude Opus 4.6 scores 93.5% on HumanEval+ compared to Qwen 2.5 72B's 80.0%, while Claude Opus 4.6 scores 80.8% on SWE-bench Verified compared to Qwen 2.5 72B's 28.0%, while Claude Opus 4.6 scores 72.0% on LiveCodeBench compared to Qwen 2.5 72B's 55.5%.
Math: In math, Claude Opus 4.6 scores 92.0% on MATH compared to Qwen 2.5 72B's 83.1%, while Claude Opus 4.6 scores 97.0% on GSM8K compared to Qwen 2.5 72B's 91.0%.
Reasoning: In reasoning, Claude Opus 4.6 scores 91.3% on GPQA Diamond compared to Qwen 2.5 72B's 49.1%, while Claude Opus 4.6 scores 60.0% on ARC-AGI compared to Qwen 2.5 72B's 12.0%.
Context: In context, Claude Opus 4.6 scores 200K on Context Length compared to Qwen 2.5 72B's 131K.
Pricing Comparison
Claude Opus 4.6 costs $5.0/1M input tokens and $25.0/1M output tokens, while Qwen 2.5 72B costs $0.12/1M input and $0.39/1M output. Qwen 2.5 72B is the more affordable option for API usage.
Speed Comparison
Claude Opus 4.6 generates output at 68 tok/s compared to Qwen 2.5 72B's 80 tok/s, and the time to first token is 1680 ms for Claude Opus 4.6 versus 350 ms for Qwen 2.5 72B. Qwen 2.5 72B delivers faster throughput.
Verdict
For developers prioritizing coding and general intelligence and math, Claude Opus 4.6 has the edge. For those who value affordability and speed, Qwen 2.5 72B is the stronger choice.
View Individual Model Pages
Claude Opus 4.6 vs Qwen 2.5 72B — FAQ
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.6 or Qwen 2.5 72B?
Claude Opus 4.6 wins on more benchmarks overall (10 vs 4). However, the best choice depends on your specific needs — each model excels in different areas.
How does Claude Opus 4.6 compare to Qwen 2.5 72B for coding?
Claude Opus 4.6 is better for coding, scoring 80.8% on SWE-bench Verified compared to 28.0%. SWE-bench tests real-world software engineering by resolving actual GitHub issues.
Is Claude Opus 4.6 cheaper than Qwen 2.5 72B?
Yes, Qwen 2.5 72B is cheaper. Claude Opus 4.6 costs $5.0/1M input and $25.0/1M output tokens. Qwen 2.5 72B costs $0.12/1M input and $0.39/1M output tokens.
Which is faster, Claude Opus 4.6 or Qwen 2.5 72B?
Qwen 2.5 72B is faster, generating output at 80 tok/s compared to 68 tok/s. Faster output speed means shorter wait times for API responses.
What benchmarks does the Claude Opus 4.6 vs Qwen 2.5 72B comparison cover?
This comparison covers 14 benchmarks including Chatbot Arena ELO, MMLU-Pro, HumanEval+, MATH, SWE-bench Verified, GPQA Diamond, Output Speed, Time to First Token, and more. Metrics span general intelligence, coding, math, reasoning, speed, and cost categories.