Claude Opus 4.6 vs Qwen3 4B 2507 Thinking
Wins 6 of 6 areas
Coding · Reasoning · Facts · Math · Long documents · Following instructions
Wins 0 of 6 areas
—
Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger all-rounder.Qwen3 4B 2507 Thinking is cheaper.
Scores updated · 13 tests both models report · How we compare
Where each one wins
Tests won in each of the six 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.
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking30Claude Opus 4.63 of 3 tests
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up20Claude Opus 4.62 of 2 tests
- MathCompetition and research-level math20Claude Opus 4.62 of 2 tests
- CodingWriting and fixing software10Claude Opus 4.61 of 1 test
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts10Claude Opus 4.61 of 1 test
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked10Claude Opus 4.61 of 1 test
Coding, 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 4B 2507 Thinking costs 100% 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 Claude Opus 4.6 pulls ahead
- Hard command-line tasks in a real terminalTerminal-Bench Hard+44.7points ahead
- Harvard-MIT high-school math contest problemsHMMT Feb. 2026+43.2points ahead
- Reasons across sets of long documentsAA-LCR+40.7points ahead
Where Qwen3 4B 2507 Thinking pulls ahead
No clear win on a test scored out of 100.
Every test, side by side
All 13 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.6
- Humanity's Last ExamClaude Opus 4.6 by 33.739.96.2+33.7
- GPQA DiamondClaude Opus 4.6 by 22.989.666.7+22.9
- CritPtClaude Opus 4.6 by 12.612.60+12.6
FactsClaude Opus 4.6
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyClaude Opus 4.6 by 34.54712.5+34.5
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationClaude Opus 4.6 by 20.437.216.8+20.4
MathClaude Opus 4.6
- HMMT Feb. 2026Claude Opus 4.6 by 43.296.253+43.2
- AIME 2026Claude Opus 4.6 by 14.296.782.5+14.2
Following instructionsClaude Opus 4.6
- IFBenchClaude Opus 4.6 by 3.353.149.8+3.3
Other results3 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.
- AA-OmniscienceClaude Opus 4.6 by 7413.7-60.3+74
- τ²-Bench Telecom (AA run)Claude Opus 4.6 by 66.792.125.4+66.7
- AA IntelligenceClaude Opus 4.6 by 23.131.98.8+23.1
Questions people ask
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.6 or Qwen3 4B 2507 Thinking?
Claude Opus 4.6 wins all six areas where both have results: coding, reasoning, facts, math, long documents and following instructions. Qwen3 4B 2507 Thinking wins none, but costs 100% less.
Which is better for coding?
Claude Opus 4.6. It wins the one coding test both models report.
Which is cheaper?
Claude Opus 4.6 costs $5.00 per million input tokens and $25.00 per million output tokens; Qwen3 4B 2507 Thinking costs $0.01 and $0.03. That makes Qwen3 4B 2507 Thinking about 100% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 13 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 10 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 3 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.