Skip to content
Rival
How it worksPrivacyTerms
Explore all of Rival

Explore

  • Compare Models
  • All Models
  • Image Comparison
  • Audio Comparison
  • Image Generation
  • Best AI For...
  • Arena
  • API Pricing
  • Challenges

Discover

  • SubjectiveBench
  • Default Index
  • Research
  • Research downloads
  • Rival Kits
  • Find your AI taste
  • UI Glow-Up
  • VoiceLock
  • Cost Cutter
  • Agent skills
  • Benchmarks vs Vibes
  • Brief
  • Jailbreak
  • Model Updates
  • Provider Status
  • AI Creators

Connect

  • Methodology
  • Advertise
  • Partnerships
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms
  • RSS Feed
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Compare
  4. /
  5. Claude Opus 5.5vsQwen Plus 0728 (thinking)
Updated Sep 2026

Claude Opus 5.5vsQwen Plus 0728 (thinking)

Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking) is cheaper than Claude Opus 5.5 at $0.4/M vs $4/M input tokens.

Claude Opus 5.5 and Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking) compared across 17 shared prompts
SpecClaude Opus 5.5Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking)
Input price$4/M tokens$0.4/M tokens
Output price$20/M tokens$4/M tokens
Context window1.0M tokens1.0M tokens
WeightsClosed—
Free API (OpenRouter)NoNo
ReleasedSep 2026Sep 2025
Side by side

Same prompt, both answers

Opening lines from 6 of the 17 prompts both answered. Formatting stripped, words untouched.

Debug This Architecture

Here's the architecture for a real-time collaborative document editor (like Google Docs): **System Overview:** - Frontend: React SPA with…

Claude Opus 5.52,280 words
Architecture Review: Real-Time Collaborative Editor The most serious problems cluster in three areas: the sync model (client-clock LWW), cross-server propagation (per-server WebSockets with DB polling), and the CDN/auth layer, which can leak data between users. Issues are grouped by area below.
Read the full answer
Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking)1,224 words
Here's a comprehensive analysis of the architecture's failure modes, race conditions, and bottlenecks, with specific solutions and trade-offs: 1. Sync Strategy: Client Timestamps + Last-Write-Wins (LWW) Failure Mode/Race Condition: Clock Skew: Client clocks are unreliable (e.g., user's laptop time off by minutes).
Read the full answer

Simple 7-Ingredient Recipe

Create a simple recipe for a delicious dish (sweet or savory) using only 7 common pantry ingredients. Include a creative name for the dish…

Claude Opus 5.5300 words
Midnight Silk Noodles Creamy, tangy peanut noodles with a gentle kick, ready faster than takeout. Serves: 2 Prep time: 5 minutes Cook time: 10 minutes Total time: 15 minutes The 7 Ingredients 8 oz (225 g) spaghetti (or any long noodle) ¼ cup creamy peanut butter 3 tablespoons soy sauce 1 tablespoon honey (or sugar) 1…
Read the full answer
Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking)282 words
Crispy Chickpea Pantry Pasta Sweet or savory? Savory with a zesty kick! Total time: 15 minutes Serves: 2 Why it works: Uses pantry staples to create a crunchy, garlicky, umami-packed meal with zero fresh produce needed. The chickpeas get incredibly crispy, and lemon juice (bottled) adds bright freshness.
Read the full answer

Ethical Dilemma with Stakeholders

You're the CEO of a pharmaceutical company. Your best-selling drug ($2B annual revenue, used by 4 million patients for chronic pain) has…

Claude Opus 5.51,853 words
The Next 48 Hours: CEO Action Plan The Core Decision We disclose. The question is how to do it well, not whether. Before the schedule, here are the three facts that drive every decision below. 1. The harm is concrete.
Read the full answer
Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking)1,485 words
48-Hour Crisis Action Plan: Prioritizing Patients, Ethics, and Sustainable Trust Core Principle: Patient safety is non-negotiable. Delaying action based on financial fear risks catastrophic legal liability, irreversible reputational damage, regulatory wrath, and profound ethical failure.
Read the full answer

Explain Like I'm a Specific Expert

Explain how a large language model (like GPT or Claude) learns and generates text to each of these three audiences: 1. **An experienced…

Claude Opus 5.51,442 words
How Large Language Models Work: Three Explanations For the Experienced Software Engineer Think of an LLM as a single, very large pure function: f(tokens[0..n]) → probability distribution over tokens[n+1]. Text is chunked into tokens (roughly word fragments, from a vocabulary of about 100k).
Read the full answer
Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking)1,200 words
For the Experienced Software Engineer (Skeptical Builder) Forget "next word prediction" as a simplistic heuristic—it's the emergent consequence of a massively parallel, distributed state machine solving a high-dimensional compression problem.
Read the full answer

Startup Pitch Teardown

Here's a pitch deck summary for a startup called "MindMeld AI": **Slide 1 - Vision:** "We're building the future of human-AI collaboration.…

Claude Opus 5.5936 words
The 3 Weakest Claims in the MindMeld AI Pitch "Decodes neural patterns into text with 94% accuracy. Works with any language, any device." (Slide 3) Why it's weak: It far exceeds the published state of the art. The best results for thought-to-text come from invasive implants.
Read the full answer
Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking)644 words
Based on a rigorous analysis of neuroscience, market realities, and startup best practices, here are the 3 weakest claims in the MindMeld AI pitch deck, with evidence-backed critiques and concrete fixes: Weakest Claim #1: Slide 1 Vision – "Predicts what you want to type *before you think it*" Why it's weak: Violates…
Read the full answer

Historical Counterfactual Analysis

If the transistor had been invented in 1920 instead of 1947, trace the likely technological, economic, and geopolitical implications through…

Claude Opus 5.53,435 words
The Transistor in 1920: A Counterfactual Through 1980 First, a Reality Check on the Premise A transistor "invented" in 1920 would not have changed the world in 1920. The actual 1947 transistor rested on three foundations that did not exist yet: Quantum theory of solids.
Read the full answer
Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking)1,714 words
The Transistor in 1920: A World Transformed by 1980 (A Counterfactual History) The invention of a functional point-contact transistor (likely germanium-based, given 1920s materials science) in 1920 wouldn't immediately spark a revolution.
Read the full answer
Our Verdict
Claude Opus 5.5
Claude Opus 5.5
Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking)
Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking)Runner-up

Not enough votes to call it. On the specs, Claude Opus 5.5 has the edge: newer, major provider backing.

Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking) costs 5.0x less per token.

Too close to call

Reviewing agent-written code?See a Brief PR report

API pricing

Cost per 1M tokens

Claude Opus 5.5
Input
$4.00
Output
$20.00
Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking)
Input
$0.40
10× cheaper
Output
$4.00
5.0× cheaper

Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking) is cheaper on both: 10× input, 5.0× output.

Where to run it

4 hosts

Claude Opus 5.54 hosts
HostInOutContextUptime
Amazon Bedrock$4.00 in·$20.00 out·1M·99.8% upAzure AI Foundry$4.00 in·$20.00 out·1M·100% upAnthropic$4.00 in·$20.00 out·1M·100% upGoogle Vertex AI$4.00 in·$20.00 out·1M·100% up
Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking)

No hosts listed on OpenRouter.

Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 25 Sep 2026.

Research

What we learned reading every model

FAQ

Common questions

Claude Opus 5.5 is developed by Anthropic while Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking) is developed by Qwen. Claude Opus 5.5 has a 1.0M token context window vs Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking)'s 1.0M. You can compare their actual outputs across 17 challenges on Rival to see how they differ in practice.

It depends on your use case. Claude Opus 5.5 and Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking) each have strengths in different areas. Rival lets you compare their real outputs side-by-side across 17 challenges so you can judge which fits your needs best.

Claude Opus 5.5 costs $4/M input tokens and Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking) costs $0.4/M input tokens. Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking) is $3.60/M cheaper per input. Check their side-by-side outputs on Rival to see if the price difference is justified by quality.

This page shows a side-by-side comparison of Claude Opus 5.5 and Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking) across shared challenges. You can vote on which model produced the better output in a blind duel. Browsing and voting are free. No account is needed to look; signing in only saves your votes and likes.

Keep exploring

More comparisons

Against the newest arrivals

Claude Opus 5.5 logoSolar Mini 4 logo
Claude Opus 5.5 vs Solar Mini 4Landed Sep 2026
Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking) logoQwen3.8 Max Prime logo
Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking) vs Qwen3.8 Max PrimeLanded Sep 2026
Claude Opus 5.5 logoGLM 5.3 Prime logo
Claude Opus 5.5 vs GLM 5.3 PrimeLanded Sep 2026
Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking) logoQwen3.8 Omni Flash logo
Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking) vs Qwen3.8 Omni FlashLanded Sep 2026
Claude Opus 5.5 logoCommand A+ logo
Claude Opus 5.5 vs Command A+Landed Sep 2026
Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking) logoGPT-6 Luna Pro logo
Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking) vs GPT-6 Luna ProLanded Sep 2026
Claude Opus 5.5 logoGPT-6 Sol Pro logo
Claude Opus 5.5 vs GPT-6 Sol ProLanded Sep 2026
Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking) logoGPT-6 Luna logo
Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking) vs GPT-6 LunaLanded Sep 2026

Same lab, same size, long tail

Claude Opus 5.5 logoClaude Opus 4.6 logo
Claude Opus 5.5 vs Claude Opus 4.6Same lab
Claude Opus 5.5 logoClaude Fable 5.1 logo
Claude Opus 5.5 vs Claude Fable 5.1Same lab
Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking) logoQwen3.7 Flash logo
Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking) vs Qwen3.7 FlashSame lab
Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking) logoQwen3.8 Flash logo
Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking) vs Qwen3.8 FlashSame lab
Claude Opus 5.5 logoKimi K2 Thinking logo
Claude Opus 5.5 vs Kimi K2 ThinkingNew provider
Claude Opus 5.5 logoKimi K2.5 logo
Claude Opus 5.5 vs Kimi K2.5Same size
Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking) logoKimi K2.6 logo
Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking) vs Kimi K2.6Same size
Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking) logoKimi K2.7 Code logo
Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking) vs Kimi K2.7 CodeNew provider

Model pages

Claude Opus 5.5 logo
Claude Opus 5.519 outputs, specs and price
Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking) logo
Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking)37 outputs, specs and price
Rival
How it worksPrivacyTerms
Explore all of Rival

Explore

  • Compare Models
  • All Models
  • Image Comparison
  • Audio Comparison
  • Image Generation
  • Best AI For...
  • Arena
  • API Pricing
  • Challenges

Discover

  • SubjectiveBench
  • Default Index
  • Research
  • Research downloads
  • Rival Kits
  • Find your AI taste
  • UI Glow-Up
  • VoiceLock
  • Cost Cutter
  • Agent skills
  • Benchmarks vs Vibes
  • Brief
  • Jailbreak
  • Model Updates
  • Provider Status
  • AI Creators

Connect

  • Methodology
  • Advertise
  • Partnerships
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms
  • RSS Feed