Model Comparison

Claude Opus 4.6 vs Qwen3.6-27B

Claude Opus 4.6 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks. Qwen3.6-27B is 7.4x cheaper per token.

Want to compare interactively?Try the playground

Performance Benchmarks

Comparative analysis across standard metrics

7 benchmarks

Claude Opus 4.6 outperforms in 6 benchmarks (GPQA, Humanity's Last Exam, MMMU-Pro, SWE-bench Multilingual, SWE-Bench Verified, Terminal-Bench 2.0), while Qwen3.6-27B is better at 1 benchmark (CharXiv-R).

Claude Opus 4.6 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Wed May 13 2026 • llm-stats.com

Arena Performance

Human preference votes

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Qwen3.6-27B costs less

For input processing, Claude Opus 4.6 ($5.00/1M tokens) is 8.3x more expensive than Qwen3.6-27B ($0.60/1M tokens).

For output processing, Claude Opus 4.6 ($25.00/1M tokens) is 6.9x more expensive than Qwen3.6-27B ($3.60/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Claude Opus 4.6 is more expensive than Qwen3.6-27B.*

* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens

Lowest available price from all providers

Wed May 13 2026 • llm-stats.com

Claude Opus 4.6

Input tokens$5.00

Output tokens$25.00

Best providerAnthropic

Qwen3.6-27B

Input tokens$0.60

Output tokens$3.60

Best providerNovita

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Claude Opus 4.6 accepts 1,000,000 input tokens compared to Qwen3.6-27B's 262,144 tokens. Claude Opus 4.6 can generate longer responses up to 128,000 tokens, while Qwen3.6-27B is limited to 65,536 tokens.

Claude Opus 4.6

Input1,000,000 tokens

Output128,000 tokens

Qwen3.6-27B

Input262,144 tokens

Output65,536 tokens

Wed May 13 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input Capabilities

Supported data types and modalities

Both Claude Opus 4.6 and Qwen3.6-27B support multimodal inputs.

They are both capable of processing various types of data, offering versatility in application.

Claude Opus 4.6

Text

Images

Audio

Video

Qwen3.6-27B

Text

Images

Audio

Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Claude Opus 4.6 is licensed under a proprietary license, while Qwen3.6-27B uses Apache 2.0.

License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.

Claude Opus 4.6

Proprietary

Closed source

Qwen3.6-27B

Apache 2.0

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Claude Opus 4.6 was released on 2026-02-05, while Qwen3.6-27B was released on 2026-04-21.

Qwen3.6-27B is 3 months newer than Claude Opus 4.6.

Claude Opus 4.6

Feb 5, 2026

3 months ago

Qwen3.6-27B

Apr 21, 2026

3 weeks ago

2mo newer

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.

Unable to compare the recency of their training data.

No cutoff dates available

Provider Availability

Claude Opus 4.6 is available from Anthropic. Qwen3.6-27B is available from Novita.

Claude Opus 4.6

Anthropic

Input Price:Input: $5.00/1MOutput Price:Output: $25.00/1M

Qwen3.6-27B

Novita

Input Price:Input: $0.60/1MOutput Price:Output: $3.60/1M

* Prices shown are per million tokens

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Key Takeaways

Claude Opus 4.6

View details

Anthropic

Larger context window (1,000,000 tokens)

Higher GPQA score (91.3% vs 87.8%)

Higher Humanity's Last Exam score (53.1% vs 24.0%)

Higher MMMU-Pro score (77.3% vs 75.8%)

Higher SWE-bench Multilingual score (77.8% vs 71.3%)

Higher SWE-Bench Verified score (80.8% vs 77.2%)

Higher Terminal-Bench 2.0 score (65.4% vs 59.3%)

Qwen3.6-27B

View details

Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team

Less expensive input tokens

Less expensive output tokens

Has open weights

Higher CharXiv-R score (78.4% vs 77.4%)

Detailed Comparison

AI Model Comparison Table
Feature	Claude Opus 4.6	Qwen3.6-27B

FAQ

Common questions about Claude Opus 4.6 vs Qwen3.6-27B.

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.6 or Qwen3.6-27B?

Claude Opus 4.6 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks. Claude Opus 4.6 is made by Anthropic and Qwen3.6-27B is made by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their benchmark scores, pricing, and capabilities above.

How does Claude Opus 4.6 compare to Qwen3.6-27B in benchmarks?

Claude Opus 4.6 scores Vending-Bench 2: 100.0%, AIME 2025: 99.8%, Tau2 Telecom: 99.3%, Graphwalks parents >128k: 95.4%, MRCR v2 (8-needle): 93.0%. Qwen3.6-27B scores CountBench: 97.8%, VLMsAreBlind: 97.0%, V*: 94.7%, AIME 2026: 94.1%, HMMT 2025: 93.8%.

Is Claude Opus 4.6 cheaper than Qwen3.6-27B?

Qwen3.6-27B is 8.3x cheaper for input tokens. Claude Opus 4.6 costs $5.00/M input and $25.00/M output via anthropic. Qwen3.6-27B costs $0.60/M input and $3.60/M output via novita.

What are the context window sizes for Claude Opus 4.6 and Qwen3.6-27B?

Claude Opus 4.6 supports 1.0M tokens and Qwen3.6-27B supports 262K tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between Claude Opus 4.6 and Qwen3.6-27B?

Key differences include context window (1.0M vs 262K), input pricing ($5.00 vs $0.60/M), licensing (Proprietary vs Apache 2.0). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Claude Opus 4.6 and Qwen3.6-27B?

Claude Opus 4.6 is developed by Anthropic and Qwen3.6-27B is developed by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team.