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 5.5vsQwen3.6 Flash
Updated Sep 2026

Claude Opus 5.5vsQwen3.6 Flash

Qwen3.6 Flash is cheaper than Claude Opus 5.5 at $0.25/M vs $4/M input tokens.

Claude Opus 5.5 and Qwen3.6 Flash compared across 19 shared prompts
SpecClaude Opus 5.5Qwen3.6 Flash
Input price$4/M tokens$0.25/M tokens
Output price$20/M tokens$1.5/M tokens
Context window1.0M tokens1.0M tokens
WeightsClosedOpen
Free API (OpenRouter)NoNo
ReleasedSep 2026Apr 2026
Side by side

Same prompt, both answers

Opening lines from 6 of the 19 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 $4.8m per year. Mezz PIK accrues to principal. All FCF after mandatory debt service sweeps to the TL.
Read the full answer
Qwen3.6 Flash594 words
Initial Setup & Equity Calculation Item Calculation Amount ($m) Purchase Price $120m × 12.0x 1,440.0 Transaction Fees $1,440m × 2.0% 28.8 Total Debt ($480m TL + $180m Mezz) 660.0 Initial Equity $1,440 + $28.8 − $660 808.8 Year-by-Year Model (FY2026–FY2030) (All figures in $m, rounded to 1 decimal.
Read the full answer

Michelin Star Recipe Design

Design an innovative recipe for a multi-component dish worthy of a Michelin 3-star restaurant. The recipe should feature an unusual…

Claude Opus 5.52,253 words
"Hive & Tide" Langoustine, Beeswax, White Chocolate & Oscietra Caviar, Hay-Baked Celeriac, Fermented Green Strawberry, Sea Buckthorn I. The Concept Most coastal menus celebrate the meeting of sea and land. This dish is about a stranger, quieter meeting: the meadow and the seabed, the bee and the langoustine.
Read the full answer
Qwen3.6 Flash1,243 words
SYMBIOSIS: Tide, Timber, and Time A Multi-Sensory Exploration of Fungal and Marine Resonance Conceptual Narrative In the Michelin 3-star tradition, a dish must tell a story that transcends sustenance. Symbiosis explores the ancient dialogue between the forest floor and the ocean tide.
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
Qwen3.6 Flash1,266 words
Disclaimer: The following analysis is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Contract laws vary significantly by jurisdiction (e.g., California vs. New York vs. EU). You should consult a qualified attorney in your jurisdiction before signing or negotiating any legal document.
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
Qwen3.6 Flash1,180 words
This architecture contains several critical failure modes that would prevent it from functioning as a functional collaborative editor. The combination of round-robin load balancing with persistent WebSocket connections, client-side clock synchronization, HTML-based storage, and aggressive CDN caching creates a system…
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
Qwen3.6 Flash818 words
For the Experienced Software Engineer Think of LLM training not as magic autocomplete, but as a distributed optimization problem over a continuous, trillion-parameter state space. You’re familiar with tuning hyperparameters in a microservices architecture: you adjust configs, monitor metrics, and iterate.
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
Qwen3.6 Flash1,221 words
This alternate timeline assumes that a functional, manufacturable transistor emerges in 1920, and that parallel advances in semiconductor physics, materials purification, and photolithography compress the typical 20–30 year maturation curve.
Read the full answer
Our Verdict
Claude Opus 5.5
Claude Opus 5.5
Qwen3.6 Flash
Qwen3.6 FlashRunner-up

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

Qwen3.6 Flash costs 13x 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
Qwen3.6 Flash
Input
$0.25
16× cheaper
Output
$1.50
13× cheaper

Qwen3.6 Flash is cheaper on both: 16× input, 13× output.

Where to run it

5 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
Qwen3.6 Flash1 host
HostInOutContextUptime
Alibaba Cloud$0.19 in·$1.13 out·1M·100% 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 Qwen3.6 Flash is developed by Qwen. Claude Opus 5.5 has a 1.0M token context window vs Qwen3.6 Flash's 1.0M. 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 Qwen3.6 Flash 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 Qwen3.6 Flash costs $0.25/M input tokens. Qwen3.6 Flash is $3.75/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 Qwen3.6 Flash 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
Qwen3.6 Flash logoQwen3.8 Max Prime logo
Qwen3.6 Flash 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
Qwen3.6 Flash logoQwen3.8 Omni Flash logo
Qwen3.6 Flash vs Qwen3.8 Omni FlashLanded Sep 2026
Claude Opus 5.5 logoCommand A+ logo
Claude Opus 5.5 vs Command A+Landed Sep 2026
Qwen3.6 Flash logoGPT-6 Luna Pro logo
Qwen3.6 Flash 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
Qwen3.6 Flash logoGPT-6 Luna logo
Qwen3.6 Flash 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
Qwen3.6 Flash logoQwen3.7 Flash logo
Qwen3.6 Flash vs Qwen3.7 FlashSame lab
Qwen3.6 Flash logoQwen3.8 Flash logo
Qwen3.6 Flash vs Qwen3.8 FlashSame lab
Claude Opus 5.5 logoGemini 2.5 Flash Lite Preview 09-2025 logo
Claude Opus 5.5 vs Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite Preview 09-2025Same size
Claude Opus 5.5 logoGemini 2.5 Flash Preview logo
Claude Opus 5.5 vs Gemini 2.5 Flash PreviewNew provider
Claude Opus 5.5 logoGemini 2.5 Flash Preview 05-20 logo
Claude Opus 5.5 vs Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview 05-20New provider
Claude Opus 5.5 logoGemini 2.5 Flash Preview 05-20 (thinking) logo
Claude Opus 5.5 vs Gemini 2.5 Flash Preview 05-20 (thinking)New provider

Model pages

Claude Opus 5.5 logo
Claude Opus 5.519 outputs, specs and price
Qwen3.6 Flash logo
Qwen3.6 Flash58 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