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 5.5vsQwen3.5 9B
Updated Sep 2026

Claude Opus 5.5vsQwen3.5 9B

Qwen3.5 9B is cheaper than Claude Opus 5.5 at $0.1/M vs $4/M input tokens.

Claude Opus 5.5 and Qwen3.5 9B compared across 18 shared prompts
SpecClaude Opus 5.5Qwen3.5 9B
Input price$4/M tokens$0.1/M tokens
Output price$20/M tokens$0.15/M tokens
Context window1.0M tokens262K tokens
WeightsClosedOpen
Free API (OpenRouter)NoNo
ReleasedSep 2026Mar 2026
Side by side

Same prompt, both answers

Opening lines from 6 of the 18 prompts both answered. Formatting stripped, words untouched.

Mini LBO Underwrite

You are underwriting a 5-year LBO for a private equity investment committee. Company (fictional): HarborTech Services (HTS) –…

Claude Opus 5.5900 words
HarborTech Services: 5-Year LBO Underwriting Conventions: $m. Interest is charged on beginning-of-year balances, which avoids circularity. Term Loan (TL) amortization is 1% of the original $480m, or $4.8m per year. Mezz PIK accrues to principal. All FCF after mandatory debt service sweeps to the TL.
Read the full answer
Qwen3.5 9B516 words
LBO Model: Year-by-Year (FY2026–FY2030) Entry Capital Stack (End of FY2025) Purchase Price: $900m Rev * 12.0x = $1,440.0m Transaction Fees: 2.0% of $1,440.0m = $28.8m Total Enterprise Value: $1,468.8m Total Debt: 5.5x EBITDA ($120m) = $660.0m Term Loan: 4.0x = $480.0m Mezzanine: 1.5x = $180.0m Equity Injection…
Read the full answer

Adversarial Contract Review

Here is a contract for a software consulting engagement: --- SOFTWARE CONSULTING AGREEMENT This Agreement is entered into between TechCorp…

Claude Opus 5.54,420 words
Contractor-Side Review of the Software Consulting Agreement Overall assessment: This agreement is heavily one-sided. Nearly every clause shifts risk, cost, or control to the Contractor, and several provisions interact to create compounding exposure.
Read the full answer
Qwen3.5 9B1,444 words
Disclaimer: I am an AI assistant and not an attorney. The following analysis is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Contract enforceability varies significantly by jurisdiction (e.g., state laws in the US, common law in the UK, etc.).
Read the full answer

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
Qwen3.5 9B1,263 words
This architecture contains several significant architectural flaws that would result in data loss, user frustration, and severe scaling limitations. While it mimics a general backend structure, it lacks the specific patterns required for collaborative editing.
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
Qwen3.5 9B1,359 words
This is a counterfactual scenario that fundamentally alters the trajectory of human history. In our timeline, the transistor was the key to the Information Age. In this timeline, the Information Age begins in earnest during the Great Depression and accelerates during World War II.
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
Qwen3.5 9B1,228 words
Executive Decision Statement Decision: I will initiate an immediate voluntary safety update and regulatory disclosure. I will reject the legal team's "6-month delay" strategy and the board's "wait for data" directive. Delaying disclosure of a known, serious safety signal constitutes fraud in many jurisdictions.
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
Qwen3.5 9B781 words
Here are the 3 weakest claims in the "MindMeld AI" pitch deck, along with an analysis of why they are dangerous and how to fix them. The Scientific Feasibility Claim (Slides 1 & 3) The Weak Claim: "Predict what you want to type before you think it" and "94% accuracy."
Read the full answer
Our Verdict
Claude Opus 5.5
Claude Opus 5.5
Qwen3.5 9B
Qwen3.5 9BRunner-up

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

Qwen3.5 9B costs 133x less per token.

Slight edge

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
Qwen3.5 9B
Input
$0.10
40× cheaper
Output
$0.15
133× cheaper

Qwen3.5 9B is cheaper on both: 40× input, 133× output.

Where to run it

10 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
Qwen3.5 9B6 hosts
HostInOutContextUptime
DDarkbloomfp4$0.08 in·$0.13 out·262k·99.6% upDDeepInfrabf16$0.10 in·$0.15 out·262k·99.9% upSSiliconFlowfp8$0.10 in·$0.15 out·262k·98.4% upVVenicefp8$0.10 in·$0.15 out·256k·99.5% upPParasailbf16$0.10 in·$0.25 out·262k·99% upTTogether$0.17 in·$0.25 out·262k·98.3% 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 Qwen3.5 9B is developed by Qwen. Claude Opus 5.5 has a 1.0M token context window vs Qwen3.5 9B's 262K. You can compare their actual outputs across 18 challenges on Rival to see how they differ in practice.

It depends on your use case. Claude Opus 5.5 and Qwen3.5 9B each have strengths in different areas. Rival lets you compare their real outputs side-by-side across 18 challenges so you can judge which fits your needs best.

Claude Opus 5.5 costs $4/M input tokens and Qwen3.5 9B costs $0.1/M input tokens. Qwen3.5 9B is $3.90/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 Qwen3.5 9B 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
Qwen3.5 9B logoQwen3.8 Max Prime logo
Qwen3.5 9B 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
Qwen3.5 9B logoQwen3.8 Omni Flash logo
Qwen3.5 9B vs Qwen3.8 Omni FlashLanded Sep 2026
Claude Opus 5.5 logoCommand A+ logo
Claude Opus 5.5 vs Command A+Landed Sep 2026
Qwen3.5 9B logoGPT-6 Luna Pro logo
Qwen3.5 9B 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
Qwen3.5 9B logoGPT-6 Luna logo
Qwen3.5 9B 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
Qwen3.5 9B logoQwen3.5 122B A10B logo
Qwen3.5 9B vs Qwen3.5 122B A10BVersion compare
Qwen3.5 9B logoQwen3.7 Flash logo
Qwen3.5 9B vs Qwen3.7 FlashSame lab
Qwen3.5 9B logoSonoma Dusk Alpha logo
Qwen3.5 9B vs Sonoma Dusk AlphaNew provider
Qwen3.5 9B logoSonoma Sky Alpha logo
Qwen3.5 9B vs Sonoma Sky AlphaNew provider
Qwen3.5 9B logoTernary Bonsai 2 27B logo
Qwen3.5 9B vs Ternary Bonsai 2 27BNew provider
Claude Opus 5.5 logoTNG R1T Chimera logo
Claude Opus 5.5 vs TNG R1T ChimeraSame size

Model pages

Claude Opus 5.5 logo
Claude Opus 5.519 outputs, specs and price
Qwen3.5 9B logo
Qwen3.5 9B55 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