BenchLeader
Menu
Best LLMsChoose a modelLeaderboardsModelsBenchmarksProvidersReleases9

Claude Opus 4.6 vs Qwen3.6 Max

Full profiles: Claude Opus 4.6 (Anthropic) and Qwen3.6 Max (Alibaba): every benchmark, price and rank.

Updated · Data from 9 sources

As of 27 Oct 2026, Claude Opus 4.6 and Qwen3.6 Max are neck and neck on quality (62.7 vs 62.2 on the BenchLeader Index, inside the ±3.8 margin), and Qwen3.6 Max is 3.4× cheaper at $2.92 vs $10.00 per 1M tokens blended. Choose Claude Opus 4.6 for reasoning (66 vs 58), coding (63 vs 57), and human preference (70 vs 65); choose Qwen3.6 Max for maths (65 vs 64).

Key facts (as of 27 Oct 2026)

  • Claude Opus 4.6 scores 62.7 on the BenchLeader Index and Qwen3.6 Max scores 62.2 (BenchLeader, 27 Oct 2026).
  • Claude Opus 4.6 costs $10.00 per 1M tokens blended (list price, 27 Oct 2026).
  • Qwen3.6 Max costs $2.92 per 1M tokens blended (list price, 27 Oct 2026).
  • Of the 8 benchmarks both models have, Claude Opus 4.6 leads 8 (BenchLeader, 27 Oct 2026).
  • On Arena WebDev, Claude Opus 4.6 is rated 1546 and Qwen3.6 Max 1482 (LMArena, as published by 27 Oct 2026).
Claude Opus 4.6 benchmarks high Anthropic Qwen3.6 Max benchmarks max AlibabaOpen in the comparison tool

Which to pick for…

The pick's numbers come first. Category scores on the BenchLeader scale (50 is the average model, 15 points one standard deviation). High confidence means a lead of half a standard deviation or more; under one point is called either.

Use casePickWhyConfidence
CodingClaude Opus 4.663 vs 57 category score; Arena WebDev 1546 vs 1482Medium
MathsQwen3.6 Max65 vs 64 category score; Arena Maths 1476 vs 1517Medium
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.666 vs 58 category score; Arena Hard Prompts 1530 vs 1483Medium
Chat quality (human preference)Claude Opus 4.670 vs 65 on Arena votesMedium
Lowest costQwen3.6 Max$2.96 vs $10.00 per 1M blended; agentic coding session $0.111 vs $0.400–
High volume on a budgetNeither flagshipA smaller model is usually the better fit: Cheapest good LLMs, Fastest LLMs–

Key differences

  • Claude Opus 4.6 (high) and Qwen3.6 Max (max) are neck and neck on quality (62.7 vs 62.2, within the ±3.8 margin).
  • Claude Opus 4.6 (high) is stronger in coding, human preference, multimodal, reasoning.
  • Qwen3.6 Max (max) is stronger in maths, agents & tools, composite, instruction following, knowledge, long context.
  • Qwen3.6 Max (max) is 3.4× cheaper ($2.96 vs $10.00 per 1M blended).

At a glance

SpecClaude Opus 4.6Qwen3.6 Max
DeveloperAnthropicAlibaba
Released5 Feb 202620 Apr 2026
Context window (tokens)1,000,000245,800
Compared atClaude Opus 4.6 (high)Qwen3.6 Max (max)
Open weightsNoNo
Price in / out / cached input per 1M$5.00 / $25.00 / $0.500$1.32 / $7.90 / $0.132

Category by category

Category scores on the BenchLeader scale: 50 is the average evaluated model, 15 points is one standard deviation. A gap under one point is called level.

CategoryClaude Opus 4.6 (high)Qwen3.6 Max (max)Leader
Reasoning65.558.1Claude Opus 4.6
Coding62.756.6Claude Opus 4.6
Agents & tools–72.1not comparable
Maths63.564.9Qwen3.6 Max
Knowledge–62.1not comparable
Instruction following–74.6not comparable
Human preference70.064.8Claude Opus 4.6
Multimodal66.6–not comparable
Long context–65.2not comparable
Composite–60.9not comparable

Where sources disagree

Across the 8 benchmarks both have, Claude Opus 4.6 leads 8, Qwen3.6 Max leads 0. Independent sources split: Claude Opus 4.6 leads on Arena Text; Qwen3.6 Max leads on AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2.

Overall indexClaude Opus 4.6 (high)Qwen3.6 Max (max)Leader
BenchLeader Index62.762.2neck and neck
AA Intelligence Index v4.3.226.4†28.4Qwen3.6 Max
Arena Text15031461Claude Opus 4.6

Each publisher runs its own tasks, harnesses and effort settings, so their overall verdicts can differ; BenchLeader reconciles them on one scale. † measured at another effort setting of the same model (the publisher did not test the one compared here).

Price, speed and latency

List prices blended at three input tokens per output token. Per-task prices use the token counts on the methodology page; suite cost is what Artificial Analysis paid to run its whole Intelligence Index.

MeasureClaude Opus 4.6 (high)Qwen3.6 Max (max)
Blended price per 1M tokens$10.00$2.96
Input / output per 1M$5.00 / $25.00$1.32 / $7.90
Cached input per 1M$0.500$0.132
Price per task: chat reply$0.0095$0.0029
Price per task: summarize a 30-page report$0.075$0.021
Price per task: code edit$0.068$0.020
Price per task: agentic coding session$0.400$0.111
Price per task: structured extraction$0.015$0.0042
Output speed38 tok/s–
Time to first answer1.2 s–

Each model is compared at its best-ranked reasoning-effort setting. Claude Opus 4.6 (high) scores 62.7 and takes 1 s to its first answer token; Claude Opus 4.6 (thinking) scores 62.5 in 1 s, Claude Opus 4.6 scores 62.5 in 1 s. Qwen3.6 Max (max) scores 62.2. Higher effort means more thinking before the answer: better scores, longer waits and more tokens billed. How reasoning effort changes scores and cost.

Every benchmark

110 benchmarks, grouped by category; each name links to the board and its leaders. † measured at another effort setting of the same model, shown for reference and not counted as a win.

MetricPublisherClaude Opus 4.6 (high)Qwen3.6 Max (max)
BenchLeader IndexBenchLeader62.762.2
Coding scoreBenchLeader62.756.6
Human preference scoreBenchLeader70.064.8
Maths scoreBenchLeader63.564.9
Multimodal scoreBenchLeader66.6–
Reasoning scoreBenchLeader65.558.1
Agents & tools scoreBenchLeader–72.1
Composite scoreBenchLeader–60.9
Instruction following scoreBenchLeader–74.6
Knowledge scoreBenchLeader–62.1
Long context scoreBenchLeader–65.2
Blended price $/MBenchLeader$10.00$2.96
Output speedBenchLeader38 tok/s–
Time to first answerBenchLeader1.2 s–
Context windowBenchLeader1,000,000 tokens245,800 tokens
Reasoning
GPQA DiamondEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub90.5%†87.4%
Humanity's Last ExamScale AI / CAIS19.0%†–
SimpleBenchSimpleBench67.6%†63.0%
Arena Hard PromptsArena (LMArena)15301483
LiveBench 1.0 ReasoningLiveBench88.7%–
GPQA Diamond (AA)Artificial Analysis89.6%†88.8%
Humanity's Last Exam (AA)Artificial Analysis39.9%†30.8%
GPQA Diamond (Vals)Vals AI89.7%†–
Kagi LLM BenchmarkKagi LLM Benchmark72.4%†–
ARC-AGI-1ARC Prize94.0%–
ARC-AGI-2ARC Prize69.2%–
ARC-AGI-3ARC Prize0.5%†–
CritPtArtificial Analysis12.6%†3.7%
Chess PuzzlesEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub21.0%†–
Mystery Game PuzzlesEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub15.0%†19.0%†
CL-benchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub20.7%†–
CL-bench LifeEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub17.0%–
LMCAEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub55.8%†42.5%
DTBenchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub91.2%†87.2%
ForecastBenchForecastBench63.4%†–
Coding
SWE-bench Verified (Epoch)Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub78.7%†76.7%
WeirdMLWeirdML78.0%–
FrontierCodeCognition26.6%†–
GSO-BenchGSO-Bench41.2%–
Arena CodingArena (LMArena)15471512
Show all 110 benchmarks
MetricPublisherClaude Opus 4.6 (high)Qwen3.6 Max (max)
Coding
Arena WebDevArena (LMArena)15461482
LiveBench 1.0 CodingLiveBench78.2%–
LiveCodeBenchVals AI84.7%†–
SWE-bench (Vals)Vals AI78.2%†72.8%
SWE-Bench ProScale AI SEAL51.9%†–
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)SWE-bench75.6%†–
SWE-bench Verified (any scaffold)SWE-bench75.6%†–
Vibe Code Bench v1.1Vals AI57.6%†–
SWE-Bench Pro (private)Scale AI SEAL51.9%†–
SWE Atlas: Codebase QnAScale AI SEAL33.3%†–
SWE Atlas: RefactoringScale AI SEAL35.6%†–
SWE Atlas: Test WritingScale AI SEAL36.7%†–
ALE-BenchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub996.5†–
AlgoTuneAlgoTune1.5–
Agents & tools
Terminal-BenchTerminal-Bench79.8%†–
CybenchCybench93.0%†–
Remote Labor IndexScale AI / CAIS4.2%†–
APEX-AgentsMercor46.3%†–
LiveBench Agentic CodingLiveBench49.0%–
Terminal-Bench HardArtificial Analysis46.2%†43.9%
τ²-Bench Telecom (AA)Artificial Analysis92.1%†95.9%
MCP AtlasScale AI SEAL76.8%†–
HiL-BenchScale AI SEAL38.3%†–
τ³-bench Bankingτ²-bench27.3%†–
APEX-Agents (AA)Artificial Analysis33.0%†–
Terminal-Bench 2.0 (Vals)Vals AI58.4%†51.7%
DeepResearch BenchDeepResearch Bench55.3%–
METR Time HorizonsMETR78.9%†–
GBAEvalEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub44.1%†–
Vending-Bench 2Andon Labs8017.6†4254.2
Maths
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub66.0%†–
FrontierMath Tier 4Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub26.8%†–
OTIS Mock AIMEEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub94.4%†91.1%
ProofBenchVals AI50.0%†–
LiveBench MathematicsLiveBench89.3%–
AIME (Vals)Vals AI95.6%†–
AIME 2026MathArena96.7%–
HMMT February 2026MathArena96.2%–
USAMO 2026MathArena47.0%–
MathArena ApexMathArena34.5%–
Arena MathsArena (LMArena)15171476
Knowledge
SimpleQA VerifiedEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub47.0%†52.0%
LiveBench 1.0 Data AnalysisLiveBench69.9%–
AA-OmniscienceArtificial Analysis13.7†9.2
MMLU-ProVals AI89.1%†–
LegalBenchVals AI85.3%†–
CorpFinVals AI67.0%†66.5%
TaxEvalVals AI76.0%†–
MedQAVals AI95.4%†–
PRBench FinanceScale AI SEAL53.3%†–
PRBench LegalScale AI SEAL52.3%†–
MultiNRCScale AI SEAL57.1%†–
CaseLaw v2Vals AI62.1%†47.9%
MedCodeVals AI48.2%†–
MedScribeVals AI86.7%†–
DrugDiscoveryBenchScale AI SEAL27.7%†–
EBR-benchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub12.7%†–
AA-Omniscience: accuracyArtificial Analysis47.0%†37.9%
AA-Omniscience: non-hallucinationArtificial Analysis37.2%†53.8%
Global-MMLU-Lite (AA)Artificial Analysis92.2%†–
Instruction following
LiveBench LanguageLiveBench83.3%–
LiveBench Instruction FollowingLiveBench63.3%–
IFBenchArtificial Analysis53.1%†76.6%
MultiChallengeScale AI SEAL37.1%†–
TutorBenchScale AI SEAL53.7%†–
Arena Instruction FollowingArena (LMArena)15111452
Human preference
Arena TextArena (LMArena)15031461
EQ-Bench 4EQ-Bench1213†–
Arena Creative WritingArena (LMArena)15001438
Arena Multi-turnArena (LMArena)15161468
Arena Longer QueriesArena (LMArena)15211474
Multimodal
Arena VisionArena (LMArena)1316–
MMMU-ProArtificial Analysis75.4%†–
VISTAScale AI SEAL46.1%†–
MMMU-Pro (Vals)Vals AI83.9%†–
MortgageTaxVals AI68.5%†–
SAGEVals AI51.6%†–
VTBScale AI SEAL27.5%†–
Long context
AA-LCRArtificial Analysis78.0%†80.7%
Arena DocumentArena (LMArena)1495–
Composite
Epoch Capabilities IndexEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub155.7†149.4
LiveBench 1.0LiveBench74.5%–
AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2Artificial Analysis31.9†28.4
Safety & honesty
FORTRESSScale AI SEAL13.0%†–
MASKScale AI SEAL85.4%†–

Data as of 2026-10-27. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.

What changed

  • Claude Opus 4.6 (high): BenchLeader Index 60.4 → 62.9.
  • Claude Opus 4.6 (high): 1 new result (USAMO 2026).
  • Qwen3.6 Max (max): BenchLeader Index 62.8 → 62.3.
  • Claude Opus 4.6 (high): BenchLeader Index 61.1 → 60.4.
  • Qwen3.6 Max (max): BenchLeader Index 63.3 → 62.8.

Rankings: Best LLM overall · Best LLM for agents · Best cheap LLMs

Claude Opus 4.6 vs Qwen3.6 Max: questions

Is Claude Opus 4.6 better than Qwen3.6 Max?
Claude Opus 4.6 (high) and Qwen3.6 Max (max) are neck and neck on quality (62.7 vs 62.2, within the ±3.8 margin). The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; the two are within the margin of error as of 27 Oct 2026, so check the category scores for your use.
Claude Opus 4.6 vs Qwen3.6 Max: which is cheaper, and will that change?
Qwen3.6 Max is cheaper today: $2.92 against $10.00 per million tokens, blended at three input tokens per output token. No price change has been announced for either.
Is Claude Opus 4.6 or Qwen3.6 Max better for coding?
Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher in coding (63 vs 57 on the category index, where 50 is average). On Arena WebDev, the top shared coding benchmark, it is 1546 for Claude Opus 4.6 against 1482 for Qwen3.6 Max.
Which is better for long documents?
Claude Opus 4.6 accepts more context: 1,000,000 against 245,800 tokens for Qwen3.6 Max.
Do independent benchmarks agree on Claude Opus 4.6 vs Qwen3.6 Max?
Across the 8 benchmarks both have, Claude Opus 4.6 leads 8, Qwen3.6 Max leads 0. Independent sources split: Claude Opus 4.6 leads on Arena Text; Qwen3.6 Max leads on AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2.
More questions (1)
When was Qwen3.6 Max released?
Qwen3.6 Max was released on 20 Apr 2026.