Claude Opus 4.1 vs Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
Compare Claude Opus 4.1 by Anthropic against Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 by Qwen, in 2 community votes, qwen: qwen3 235b a22b thinking 2507 wins 100% of head-to-head duels, context windows of 200K vs 131K, tested across 53 shared challenges.
Image Generation: Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 wins 100% of votes
Our Verdict
Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507Winner
Claude Opus 4.1Runner-up
Pick Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507. In 2 blind votes, Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 wins 100% of the time. That's not luck.
Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 particularly excels in Image Generation. Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 is 125x cheaper per token — worth considering if cost matters.
Clear winner
API pricing
Cost per 1M tokens
Claude Opus 4.1
Input
$15.00
Output
$75.00
Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
Input
$0.11
136× cheaper
Output
$0.60
125× cheaper
Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 is cheaper on both — 136× input, 125× output
Writing DNA
Style Comparison
Similarity
44%
Claude Opus 4.1 uses 6.1x more sentence length
Claude Opus 4.1
Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
61%Vocabulary56%
87wSentence Length14w
0.54Hedging0.37
5.1Bold5.7
6.7Lists4.0
0.38Emoji0.54
1.68Headings0.70
0.13Transitions0.14
Based on 17 + 22 text responses
Research
What we learned reading every model
FAQ
