Claude Opus 4.6 vs Qwen 3 235B
Side-by-side benchmark comparison across coding, math, reasoning, speed, and pricing.
Claude Opus 4.6 by Anthropic wins on 11 of 14 benchmarks against Qwen 3 235B by Qwen, which leads on 3. 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 3 235B's 1320, while Claude Opus 4.6 scores 82.0% on MMLU-Pro compared to Qwen 3 235B's 77.0%.
Coding: In coding, Claude Opus 4.6 scores 93.5% on HumanEval+ compared to Qwen 3 235B's 84.0%, while Claude Opus 4.6 scores 80.8% on SWE-bench Verified compared to Qwen 3 235B's 42.0%, while Claude Opus 4.6 scores 72.0% on LiveCodeBench compared to Qwen 3 235B's 46.0%.
Math: In math, Claude Opus 4.6 scores 92.0% on MATH compared to Qwen 3 235B's 82.0%, while Claude Opus 4.6 scores 97.0% on GSM8K compared to Qwen 3 235B's 93.0%.
Reasoning: In reasoning, Claude Opus 4.6 scores 91.3% on GPQA Diamond compared to Qwen 3 235B's 55.0%, while Claude Opus 4.6 scores 60.0% on ARC-AGI compared to Qwen 3 235B's 35.0%.
Context: In context, Claude Opus 4.6 scores 200K on Context Length compared to Qwen 3 235B's 131K.
Pricing Comparison
Claude Opus 4.6 costs $5.0/1M input tokens and $25.0/1M output tokens, while Qwen 3 235B costs $0.20/1M input and $0.80/1M output. Qwen 3 235B is the more affordable option for API usage.
Speed Comparison
Claude Opus 4.6 generates output at 68 tok/s compared to Qwen 3 235B's 60 tok/s, and the time to first token is 1680 ms for Claude Opus 4.6 versus 450 ms for Qwen 3 235B. Claude Opus 4.6 delivers faster throughput.
Verdict
For developers prioritizing coding and general intelligence and math and speed, Claude Opus 4.6 has the edge. For those who value affordability, Qwen 3 235B is the stronger choice.
View Individual Model Pages
Claude Opus 4.6 vs Qwen 3 235B — FAQ
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.6 or Qwen 3 235B?
Claude Opus 4.6 wins on more benchmarks overall (11 vs 3). However, the best choice depends on your specific needs — each model excels in different areas.
How does Claude Opus 4.6 compare to Qwen 3 235B for coding?
Claude Opus 4.6 is better for coding, scoring 80.8% on SWE-bench Verified compared to 42.0%. SWE-bench tests real-world software engineering by resolving actual GitHub issues.
Is Claude Opus 4.6 cheaper than Qwen 3 235B?
Yes, Qwen 3 235B is cheaper. Claude Opus 4.6 costs $5.0/1M input and $25.0/1M output tokens. Qwen 3 235B costs $0.20/1M input and $0.80/1M output tokens.
Which is faster, Claude Opus 4.6 or Qwen 3 235B?
Claude Opus 4.6 is faster, generating output at 68 tok/s compared to 60 tok/s. Faster output speed means shorter wait times for API responses.
What benchmarks does the Claude Opus 4.6 vs Qwen 3 235B 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.