Claude Opus 4.1
Nothing here. The model returned empty. We stared at it for a while.
Claude Opus 4.1 vs Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B
Compare Claude Opus 4.1 by Anthropic against Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B by Qwen, context windows of 200K vs 262K, tested across 27 shared challenges. Updated April 2026.
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.1 or Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B?
Claude Opus 4.1 and Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B are both competitive models. Claude Opus 4.1 costs $15/M input tokens vs $0.6/M for Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B. Context windows: 200K vs 262K tokens. Compare their real outputs side by side below.
Key Differences Between Claude Opus 4.1 and Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B
Claude Opus 4.1 is made by anthropic while Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B is from qwen. Claude Opus 4.1 has a 200K token context window compared to Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B's 262K. On pricing, Claude Opus 4.1 costs $15/M input tokens vs $0.6/M for Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B.
Our Verdict
Claude Opus 4.1
Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B
No community votes yet. On paper, these are closely matched - try both with your actual task to see which fits your workflow.
Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B is 21x cheaper per token — worth considering if cost matters.
Too close to call
Writing DNA
Style Comparison
Similarity
97%
Claude Opus 4.1 uses 6.1x more sentence length
Claude Opus 4.1
Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B
61%Vocabulary54%
87wSentence Length14w
0.54Hedging0.39
5.1Bold6.9
6.7Lists4.2
0.38Emoji0.23
1.68Headings0.93
0.13Transitions0.17
Based on 17 + 23 text responses
vsAsk them anything yourself
279 AI models invented the same fake scientist.
We read every word. 250 models. 2.14 million words. This is what we found.
Free preview13 of 58 slides
FAQ