| Signal | Claude Opus 4.5 | Delta | Qwen 3.5 397B |
|---|---|---|---|
Capabilities | 86 | +86 | |
Context window size | 84 | +84 | |
Output Capacity | 80 | +80 | |
Pricing Tier | 25 | +25 | |
Recency | 100 | +100 | |
Versatility | 67 | +67 | |
| Overall Result | 6 wins | of 6 | 0 wins |
0
days ranked higher
0
days
30
days ranked higher
Anthropic
Alibaba
Pricing unavailable
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.5 | Qwen 3.5 397B | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Score | 70 | 91 | Qwen 3.5 397B |
| Rank | #9 | #7 | Qwen 3.5 397B |
| Quality Rank | #9 | #7 | Qwen 3.5 397B |
| Adoption Rank | #9 | #8 | Qwen 3.5 397B |
| Parameters | -- | -- | -- |
| Context Window | 200K | 131K | Claude Opus 4.5 |
| Pricing | $5.00/$25.00/M | -- | -- |
| Signal Scores | |||
| Capabilities | 86 | -- | Claude Opus 4.5 |
| Context window size | 84 | -- | Claude Opus 4.5 |
| Output Capacity | 80 | -- | Claude Opus 4.5 |
| Pricing Tier | 25 | -- | Claude Opus 4.5 |
| Recency | 100 | -- | Claude Opus 4.5 |
| Versatility | 67 | -- | Claude Opus 4.5 |
Qwen 3.5 397B clearly outperforms Claude Opus 4.5 with a significant 21-point lead. For most general use cases, Qwen 3.5 397B is the stronger choice. However, Claude Opus 4.5 may still excel in niche scenarios.
Best for Quality
Claude Opus 4.5
Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
Best for Reliability
Claude Opus 4.5
Higher uptime and faster response speeds
Best for Prototyping
Claude Opus 4.5
Stronger community support and better developer experience
Best for Production
Claude Opus 4.5
Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale
by Anthropic
Qwen 3.5 397B currently scores higher (91 vs 70), but the best choice depends on your specific use case, budget, and requirements.
Claude Opus 4.5 is ranked #9 and Qwen 3.5 397B is ranked #7. Rankings are based on a composite score from multiple signals including benchmarks, community sentiment, and adoption metrics.
Pricing information may not be available for both models. Check individual model pages for the latest pricing details.