Claude Opus 4 vs Qwen3.6 27B
Wins 0 of 5 areas
—
Wins 5 of 5 areas
Coding · Reasoning · Images and charts · Long documents · Following instructions
Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger all-rounder.
Scores updated · 17 tests both models report · How we compare
Where each one wins
Tests won in each of the five areas where both have results. Each piece is one test, so a longer bar means more evidence; grey means the two scored within a point of each other.
- CodingWriting and fixing software04Qwen3.6 27B4 of 4 tests
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking02Qwen3.6 27B2 of 2 tests
- Images and chartsUnderstanding pictures, charts and video01Qwen3.6 27B1 of 1 test
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts01Qwen3.6 27B1 of 1 test
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked01Qwen3.6 27B1 of 1 test
Images and charts, long documents and following instructions rest on a single test each.
What it costs
Prices per million tokens, roughly 750,000 words. The bars show the cost of a million tokens read plus a million written.
Qwen3.6 27B costs 95% less for the same work.
The biggest differences
The tests each model wins by the widest margin, up to three each. Scores are out of 100.
Where Qwen3.6 27B pulls ahead
- Recent programming contest problemsLiveCodeBench v6+36.5points ahead
- Follows unfamiliar, precisely checkable instructionsIFBench+13.9points ahead
- Very hard expert questions across many subjectsHumanity's Last Exam+10.8points ahead
Where Claude Opus 4 pulls ahead
No clear win on a test scored out of 100.
Every test, side by side
All 17 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
CodingQwen3.6 27B
- LiveCodeBench v6Qwen3.6 27B by 36.547.483.9+36.5
- SWE-bench VerifiedQwen3.6 27B by 4.772.577.2+4.7
- Terminal-Bench HardQwen3.6 27B by 3.731.134.8+3.7
- SciCodeQwen3.6 27B by 339.842.8+3
ReasoningQwen3.6 27B
- Humanity's Last ExamQwen3.6 27B by 10.812.323.1+10.8
- GPQA DiamondQwen3.6 27B by 4.679.684.2+4.6
Following instructionsQwen3.6 27B
- IFBenchQwen3.6 27B by 13.953.767.6+13.9
Other results8 tests, not counted
Tests outside the eight areas. They are not counted above: several are summary scores built from other tests, or the same test under another name.
- HMMT 2025Qwen3.6 27B by 74.815.990.7+74.8
- HMMT Feb. 2025Qwen3.6 27B by 33.86093.8+33.8
- τ²-Bench Telecom (AA run)Qwen3.6 27B by 20.873.494.2+20.8
- Artificial Analysis Coding IndexQwen3.6 27B by 19.73453.7+19.7
- SuperGPQAQwen3.6 27B by 9.556.566+9.5
- AA Intelligencetie20.621.4tie
- MMLU-Reduxtie94.293.5tie
- MMLU-Protie86.686.2tie
Questions people ask
Which is better, Claude Opus 4 or Qwen3.6 27B?
Qwen3.6 27B wins all five areas where both have results: coding, reasoning, images and charts, long documents and following instructions. Claude Opus 4 wins none.
Which is better for coding?
Qwen3.6 27B. It wins 4 of the 4 coding tests both models report; Claude Opus 4 wins none.
Which is cheaper?
Claude Opus 4 costs $15.00 per million input tokens and $75.00 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 27B costs $0.60 and $3.60. That makes Qwen3.6 27B about 95% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 17 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 9 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 8 are listed but not counted, because several are summary scores or repeat a test. Each score is the one shown on the model's own page.