Updated March 26, 2026· Based on independent benchmark data
Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort) leads in intelligence with a score of 53.0 vs 45.0. Qwen3.5 397B A17B (Reasoning) is 8.3x cheaper at $0.60/1M tokens vs $5.00/1M.
| Metric | Qwen3.5 397B A17B (Reasoning) | Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort) |
|---|---|---|
| Intelligence Score | 45.0 | 53.0 |
| Coding Score | 41.3 | 48.1 |
| Math Score | N/A | N/A |
| Speed (tok/s) | 53 tok/s | 51 tok/s |
| Latency (TTFT) | 1.46s | 12.63s |
| Input Price / 1M tokens | $0.60 | $5.00 |
| Output Price / 1M tokens | $3.60 | $25 |
| Context Window |
Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort) outperforms Qwen3.5 397B A17B (Reasoning) on the intelligence index with a score of 53.0 compared to 45.0. For coding tasks, Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort) has the edge with a coding score of 48.1 vs 41.3.
Both models deliver similar output speeds: Qwen3.5 397B A17B (Reasoning) at 53 tok/s and Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort) at 51 tok/s. Time to first token is 1.46s for Qwen3.5 397B A17B (Reasoning) vs 12.63s for Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort), which affects perceived responsiveness in interactive applications.
Qwen3.5 397B A17B (Reasoning) is more affordable at $0.60/1M input tokens ($3.60/1M output), while Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort) costs $5.00/1M input ($25/1M output). That makes Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort) 8.3x more expensive per token, which can add up significantly at scale. For a typical workload of 100 requests per day at 2,000 tokens each, Qwen3.5 397B A17B (Reasoning) would cost approximately $3.60/month vs $30.00/month for Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort) in input costs alone.
Choose Qwen3.5 397B A17B (Reasoning) when you need lower cost. Choose Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort) when you need higher intelligence (53.0), stronger coding performance (48.1).
Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort) scores higher on coding benchmarks (48.1 vs 41.3), making it the better choice for programming tasks.
Qwen3.5 397B A17B (Reasoning) is cheaper at $0.60/1M input tokens vs $5.00/1M for Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort).
Qwen3.5 397B A17B (Reasoning) is faster, producing output at 53 tok/s compared to Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort)'s 51 tok/s.
No, Qwen3.5 397B A17B (Reasoning) does not support image input. Neither model supports image input.
Data last synced: March 26, 2026
| N/A |
| N/A |
| Max Output Tokens | N/A | N/A |
| Input Modalities | Text | Text |
| Output Modalities | Text | Text |
| Free Tier | No | No |
It depends on your priorities. Claude Opus 4.6 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort) scores higher on intelligence (53.0), but Qwen3.5 397B A17B (Reasoning) may be better for specific use cases like budget-conscious projects or speed-critical applications.