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 5.5vsQwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
Updated Sep 2026

Claude Opus 5.5vsQwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507

Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 is cheaper than Claude Opus 5.5 at $0.11/M vs $4/M input tokens.

Claude Opus 5.5 and Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 compared across 19 shared prompts
SpecClaude Opus 5.5Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
Input price$4/M tokens$0.11/M tokens
Output price$20/M tokens$0.6/M tokens
Context window1.0M tokens131K tokens
WeightsClosedOpen
Free API (OpenRouter)NoNo
ReleasedSep 2026Jul 2025
Side by side

Same prompt, both answers

Opening lines from 6 of the 19 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
Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 25071,095 words
Here's a comprehensive breakdown of critical flaws in this architecture, along with specific solutions and trade-offs. The most severe issues relate to the sync strategy and data flow, which would cause catastrophic data loss and inconsistent states in real-world use. I. Critical Sync & Data Flow Failures 1.
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
Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507327 words
🌟 "Pantry Firecracker Cinnamon Crisps" Sweet, crunchy, with a hint of smoky warmth—ready in 15 minutes! Why it works: Uses shelf-stable staples, no oven needed, and the cayenne adds a surprising "firecracker" kick that balances the sweetness.
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
Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507982 words
For the Experienced Software Engineer (Skeptical of "Next Word Prediction") You've built systems where behavior emerges from state transitions and message passing, so your skepticism about "next token prediction" creating intelligence is understandable—it sounds trivial.
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
Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 25071,700 words
Okay, the user wants me to analyze a pitch deck for a startup called MindMeld AI. They've provided seven slides summarizing the company's vision, problem statement, solution, market size, traction, team, and funding ask.
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
Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 25072,304 words
Okay, the user is asking about a hypothetical scenario where the transistor was invented in 1920 instead of 1947, and wants me to trace the implications up to 1980. This is a complex counterfactual history question that requires careful analysis of technological, economic, and geopolitical ripple effects.
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
Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 25072,051 words
Okay, the user is posing a high-stakes scenario as the CEO of a pharmaceutical company facing a serious drug safety issue. This is clearly a crisis management test that requires balancing multiple competing priorities. Hmm, the core tension here is between immediate patient safety versus corporate survival.
Read the full answer
Our Verdict
Claude Opus 5.5
Claude Opus 5.5
Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507

Not enough votes to call it. On the specs, nothing separates them.

Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 costs 33x 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
Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
Input
$0.11
36× cheaper
Output
$0.60
33× cheaper

Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 is cheaper on both: 36× input, 33× output.

Where to run it

7 hosts, cheapest first

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
Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 25073 hosts
HostInOutContextUptime
Alibaba Cloud$0.23 in·$2.30 out·131k·100% upNNovitafp8$0.30 in·$3.00 out·131k·91.9% upVVenicefp8$0.45 in·$3.50 out·128k·90.3% up

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 Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 is developed by Qwen. Claude Opus 5.5 has a 1.0M token context window vs Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507's 131K. You can compare their actual outputs across 19 challenges on Rival to see how they differ in practice.

It depends on your use case. Claude Opus 5.5 and Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 each have strengths in different areas. Rival lets you compare their real outputs side-by-side across 19 challenges so you can judge which fits your needs best.

Claude Opus 5.5 costs $4/M input tokens and Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 costs $0.11/M input tokens. Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 is $3.89/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 Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 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
Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 logoQwen3.8 Max Prime logo
Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 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
Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 logoQwen3.8 Omni Flash logo
Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 vs Qwen3.8 Omni FlashLanded Sep 2026
Claude Opus 5.5 logoCommand A+ logo
Claude Opus 5.5 vs Command A+Landed Sep 2026
Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 logoGPT-6 Luna Pro logo
Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 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
Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 logoGPT-6 Luna logo
Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 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
Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 logoQwen3.7 Flash logo
Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 vs Qwen3.7 FlashSame lab
Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 logoQwen3.8 Flash logo
Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 vs Qwen3.8 FlashSame lab
Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 logoLlama 3 70B logo
Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 vs Llama 3 70BNew provider
Claude Opus 5.5 logoLlama 3.1 405B logo
Claude Opus 5.5 vs Llama 3.1 405BNew provider
Claude Opus 5.5 logoLlama 3.1 70B (Instruct) logo
Claude Opus 5.5 vs Llama 3.1 70B (Instruct)Same size
Claude Opus 5.5 logoLlama 4 Maverick logo
Claude Opus 5.5 vs Llama 4 MaverickNew provider

Model pages

Claude Opus 5.5 logo
Claude Opus 5.519 outputs, specs and price
Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 logo
Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 250759 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