Claude Opus 4.6
Nothing here. The model returned empty. We stared at it for a while.
Claude Opus 4.6 vs Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B
Compare Claude Opus 4.6 by Anthropic against Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B by Qwen, context windows of 1.0M vs 262K, tested across 53 shared challenges. Updated April 2026.
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.6 or Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B?
Claude Opus 4.6 and Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B are both competitive models. Claude Opus 4.6 costs $5/M input tokens vs $0.6/M for Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B. Context windows: 1000K vs 262K tokens. Compare their real outputs side by side below.
Key Differences Between Claude Opus 4.6 and Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B
Claude Opus 4.6 is made by anthropic while Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B is from qwen. Claude Opus 4.6 has a 1000K token context window compared to Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B's 262K. On pricing, Claude Opus 4.6 costs $5/M input tokens vs $0.6/M for Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B.
Our Verdict
Claude Opus 4.6
Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17BRunner-up
No community votes yet. On paper, Claude Opus 4.6 has the edge — bigger context window, major provider backing.
Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B is 6.9x cheaper per token — worth considering if cost matters.
Too close to call
Writing DNA
Style Comparison
Similarity
97%
Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B uses 6.2x more transitions
Claude Opus 4.6
Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B
53%Vocabulary54%
35wSentence Length14w
0.68Hedging0.39
5.2Bold6.9
2.9Lists4.2
0.21Emoji0.23
1.34Headings0.93
0.03Transitions0.17
Based on 23 + 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