Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Claude Opus 4.1 vs Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507

Claude Opus 4.1 leads Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 22.8 to 12.7, and Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 costs 21.4x less per output token ($3.50 vs $75.00 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 41 benchmarks have a result for both.

Replace Claude Opus 4.1 Replace Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
Claude Opus 4.1Anthropic
Coding
No data
Overall
50.2
Output $/M
$75.00
31
Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507Qwen
Coding
No data
Overall
52.9
Output $/M
$3.50
10
vs boards won of 41 shared

Claude Opus 4.1 or Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507: which to pick

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick Claude Opus 4.1 for a larger context window (200K against 128K tokens) and work measured by GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) or LMArena Text: expert, where it leads.

Model AClaude Opus 4.1AnthropicNot benchmarked1 independent benchmarkNo cost per solved taskModel BQwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507QwenNot benchmarkedNo coding benchmarkNo cost per solved task
Shared results
41
Claude Opus 4.1 only
35
Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 only
5
Like-for-like categories
7 of 9

Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.

Which one for your work

Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.

At a glance

Coding index
Claude Opus 4.1 not benchmarked, Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 not benchmarked.
Widest category
Web design, 22.3 points apart on average over 6 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
Design Arena: UI components: Claude Opus 4.1 1162 against Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 942, 27.5 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Claude Opus 4.1 $75.00 against Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 $3.50 per million output tokens, 21.4x apart.
Context window
Claude Opus 4.1 takes 200K tokens, Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 128K.

Benchmark by benchmark

First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryClaude Opus 4.1BarsQwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507Ties
Coding30
Intelligence10
Reasoning32
Math12
Knowledge13
Web design60
General163
All shared boards3110
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index30
Coding benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.1 and Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507Leader
LMArena WebDev1390Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
AA Coding IndexNot measured22.1Only Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)66.5%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Terminal-Bench38.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
WeirdML45.9%41.0%Claude Opus 4.1
Cybench42.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: coding14791424Claude Opus 4.1
LMArena Text: software and IT14561431Claude Opus 4.1
LMArena WebDev: HTML1399Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
SciCode4.6%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 33 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Intelligence benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.1 and Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507Leader
AA Intelligence Index22.812.7Claude Opus 4.1
Epoch Capabilities Index144.1Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.1 and Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507Leader
AA Agentic IndexNot measured1.3Only Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 measured
METR time horizons66.8%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
GDPval43.6%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
DeepResearch Bench48.3%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Vending-Bench 2Not measured-$11Only Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 37 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index32
Reasoning benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.1 and Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507Leader
GPQA Diamond76.3%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)77.5%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)77.3%80.1%Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
SimpleBench60.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Mystery game puzzles21.0%9.0%Claude Opus 4.1
EBR-bench7.9%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
VPCT35.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts14421416Claude Opus 4.1
LMArena Text: expert14381463Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English14511432Claude Opus 4.1
Neither model has a result on the other 13 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index12
Math benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.1 and Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507Leader
AIME78.2%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
MATH 500 (Vals AI)95.4%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
MGSM (Vals AI)94.4%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
OTIS Mock AIME68.9%86.7%Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 312.6%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
FrontierMath, tier 42.4%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: math14311412Claude Opus 4.1
LMArena Text: mathematical work14341435Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index13
Knowledge benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.1 and Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507Leader
MMLU Pro87.9%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)83.5%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)73.7%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
MortgageTax (Vals AI)61.1%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
MedQA (Vals AI)93.6%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
MedCode (Vals AI)47.2%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
SimpleQA VerifiedNot measured40.4%Only Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 measured
LMArena Text: science14221433Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare14161456Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
LMArena Text: legal and government14211415Claude Opus 4.1
LMArena Text: business and finance14061413Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
FACTS Benchmark Suite40.4%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
PRBench Finance35.2%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
PRBench Legal34.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index60
Web design benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.1 and Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507Leader
Design Arena: websites11761052Claude Opus 4.1
Design Arena: UI components1162942Claude Opus 4.1
Design Arena: game dev1171956Claude Opus 4.1
Design Arena: data viz1166950Claude Opus 4.1
Design Arena: 3D1152997Claude Opus 4.1
Design Arena: all code categories11701032Claude Opus 4.1
Design Arena: SVG1151Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Design Arena: ASCII art1167Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index163
General benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.1 and Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507Leader
SAGE (Vals AI)31.4%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)73.9%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
DTBench80.0%80.3%Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
LMCA37.1%29.3%Claude Opus 4.1
Fiction.LiveBenchNot measured75.0%Only Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 measured
Creative writing (Lech Mazur)84.7%82.4%Claude Opus 4.1
LMArena Text14191415Claude Opus 4.1
LMArena Text: instruction following14351386Claude Opus 4.1
LMArena Text: creative writing14121384Claude Opus 4.1
LMArena Text: English14331429Claude Opus 4.1
LMArena Text: non-English14051397Claude Opus 4.1
LMArena Text: Chinese14271481Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
LMArena Text: German14131408Claude Opus 4.1
LMArena Text: Japanese13771386Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
LMArena Text: Korean13811375Claude Opus 4.1
LMArena Text: French1433Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: Spanish14481389Claude Opus 4.1
LMArena Text: Russian14221401Claude Opus 4.1
LMArena Text: Polish14131390Claude Opus 4.1
LMArena Text: multi-turn14441406Claude Opus 4.1
LMArena Text: longer queries14551400Claude Opus 4.1
LMArena Text: writing and language14181388Claude Opus 4.1
LMArena Text: entertainment and media13981370Claude Opus 4.1
MultiChallenge57.2%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 24 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.1 and Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507Leader
Neither model has a result on 5 boards here

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.

Chat turn

1K input + 500 output tokens

Claude Opus 4.1$0.052Fits in one request
Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507$0.0022Fits in one request

Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Claude Opus 4.1$0.975Fits in one request
Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507$0.033Fits in one request

Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Claude Opus 4.1$3.75Exceeds the context window
Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507$0.125Exceeds the context window

Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 costs less

Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.

Specification differences

The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.

Specifications of Claude Opus 4.1 and Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
SpecificationAnthropic Claude Opus 4.1Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
MakerAnthropicQwen
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedAugust 5, 2025July 25, 2025
Context window200K128K
Input $/Mtok$15.00$0.45
Output $/Mtok$75.00$3.50
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it10
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Claude Opus 4.1 better than Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Claude Opus 4.1 for a larger context window (200K against 128K tokens) and work measured by GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) or LMArena Text: expert, where it leads.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.1 or Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507?

Claude Opus 4.1 costs $15.00 per million input tokens and $75.00 per million output tokens; Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 costs $0.45 and $3.50. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Claude Opus 4.1 or Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507?

Claude Opus 4.1, with 200K tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks is the Claude Opus 4.1 vs Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 comparison based on?

41 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. Claude Opus 4.1's coding index rests on 1 independent benchmark and Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next