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 Plus 2026-02-15
Compare Claude Opus 4.1 by Anthropic against Qwen: Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15 by Qwen, context windows of 200K vs 1.0M, tested across 27 shared challenges. Updated April 2026.
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.1 or Qwen: Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15?
Claude Opus 4.1 and Qwen: Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15 are both competitive models. Claude Opus 4.1 costs $15/M input tokens vs $0.4/M for Qwen: Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15. Context windows: 200K vs 1000K tokens. Compare their real outputs side by side below.
Key Differences Between Claude Opus 4.1 and Qwen: Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15
Claude Opus 4.1 is made by anthropic while Qwen: Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15 is from qwen. Claude Opus 4.1 has a 200K token context window compared to Qwen: Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15's 1000K. On pricing, Claude Opus 4.1 costs $15/M input tokens vs $0.4/M for Qwen: Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15.
Our Verdict
Claude Opus 4.1
Qwen: Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15
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 Plus 2026-02-15 is 31x cheaper per token — worth considering if cost matters.
Too close to call
Writing DNA
Style Comparison
Similarity
97%
Claude Opus 4.1 uses 4.9x more sentence length
Claude Opus 4.1
Qwen: Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15
61%Vocabulary54%
87wSentence Length18w
0.54Hedging0.51
5.1Bold5.3
6.7Lists2.9
0.38Emoji0.10
1.68Headings0.75
0.13Transitions0.09
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