Compare / Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507 vs Claude Opus 4.5
Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507 vs Claude Opus 4.5
Which is cheaper, which is more capable, and which does better at each kind of work, from 25 results on 4 sources that measured both models.
Of the 25 results both models have, the better value on each. Results whose reported ranges overlap are too close to call.
Results as of 14 October 2026 (catalogue release 2026-10-14-7d7cf32c3f6d). See also Alibaba vs Anthropic, every model from both labs.
Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507 or Claude Opus 4.5? The short answer
Pick Claude Opus 4.5 if quality matters most: it scores higher (Intelligence Index 29.1 against 12.0). Pick Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507 if cost matters more: it costs 33 times less per token.
- Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507 is cheaper: $0.30 against $10.00 per million tokens, 33 times less.
- Claude Opus 4.5 scores higher on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index: 29.1 against 12.0.
- Claude Opus 4.5 is newer: released 24 Nov 2025, against 21 Jul 2025 for Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507.
- On third-party benchmarks, on the results both models have: Claude Opus 4.5 does better for agents and tool use, reasoning and knowledge, writing and sticking to the facts.
Head to head
Every fact side by side
| Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507 | Claude Opus 4.5 | |
|---|---|---|
| Price per million tokens | $0.15 in · $0.75 out | $5.00 in · $25.00 out |
| Blended (3 in : 1 out) | $0.30 | $10.00 |
| Cheapest host, blended | $0.15 (GMICloud, FP8) | $10.00 (Amazon Bedrock) |
| Intelligence Index | 12.0 | 29.1 |
| Spring Prompt overall | – | – |
| Output speed, tokens a second | – | – |
| Context window | 262,144 tokens | 200,000 tokens |
| Released | 21 Jul 2025 | 24 Nov 2025 (newer) |
| Weights | Open | Closed |
| Developer based in | China | the US |
Prices are the developer's list price where we have read it, otherwise the typical host on OpenRouter; see every model's price. Intelligence and speed from Artificial Analysis.
Which is better for what
Each model's rank among the models on sale today, for each kind of work, from our own benchmarks and licensed sources. Further right is better; the better rank is in green.
From our research
Every shared result
Each model's best result on every measure both have, grouped by benchmark, with the setting that produced it. Under each measure, every model that benchmark has measured is a grey tick, best to the right, so you can see where the two sit in the field. The headline measures of each benchmark come first; the rest are under "Show all". Green marks the better value; where a source reports ranges that overlap, neither is marked.
| Measure | Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507 | Claude Opus 4.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Arena (formerly LMArena) reported by Arena (formerly LMArena) · 3 results | ||
| Overall · TextArena rating, higher is better 109 · 33 of 387 measured | 1,422 | 1,474high-32k reasoning |
| Overall · Text factualityArena rating, higher is better 94 · 41 of 163 measured | 1,431 | 1,459 |
| Business, management and finance · TextArena rating, higher is better 97 · 31 of 380 measured | 1,432 | 1,472 |
| Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 3 results | ||
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence Indexindex score, higher is better 154 · 56 of 244 measured | 12.0 | 29.1thinking reasoning |
| GPQA Diamond% of questions, higher is better 136 · 69 of 231 measured | 75.3% | 86.6%thinking reasoning |
| Humanity's Last Exam% of questions, higher is better 145 · 73 of 243 measured | 11.1% | 30.1%thinking reasoning |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4 reported by Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4 · 3 results | ||
| Overall accuracy · BFCL% correct, higher is better 20 · 1 of 81 measured | 52.2%bfcl prompt | 77.5%bfcl fc |
| Irrelevance detection · BFCL% correct, higher is better 41 · 12 of 81 measured | 81.7%bfcl fc | 90.8%bfcl prompt |
| Memory · BFCL% correct, higher is better 26 · 1 of 81 measured | 23.9%bfcl fc | 73.8%bfcl fc |
| UGI Leaderboard reported by UGI Leaderboard · 3 results | ||
| Writing score · UGIscore out of 100, higher is better 80 · 8 of 230 measured | 49.0 | 70.4no reasoning |
| Requested-length error · UGI% off the requested word count, lower is better 69 · 8 of 230 measured | 15.0% | 3.0%no reasoning |
| Style adherence · UGIscore from 0 to 1, higher is better 64 · 20 of 230 measured | 0.36 | 0.39thinking reasoning |
Show all 25 results (13 more)
| Measure | Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507 | Claude Opus 4.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Arena (formerly LMArena) reported by Arena (formerly LMArena) · 4 results | ||
| Creative writing · TextArena rating, higher is better 122 · 13 of 385 measured | 1,378 | 1,470high-32k reasoning |
| Expert prompts · TextArena rating, higher is better 103 · 33 of 338 measured | 1,447 | 1,503high-32k reasoning |
| Instruction following · TextArena rating, higher is better 104 · 16 of 387 measured | 1,414 | 1,483high-32k reasoning |
| Writing, literature and language · TextArena rating, higher is better 115 · 22 of 386 measured | 1,396 | 1,467 |
| Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 4 results | ||
| IFBench% of instructions, higher is better 113 · 84 of 195 measured | 46.1% | 58.0%thinking reasoning |
| Long-context reasoning (AA-LCR)% of questions, higher is better 178 · 67 of 234 measured | 33.9% | 77.3%thinking reasoning |
| Terminal-Bench Hard% of tasks, higher is better 110 · 15 of 190 measured | 15.2% | 47.0%thinking reasoning |
| τ²-bench telecom% of tasks, higher is better 127 · 44 of 193 measured | 33.3% | 89.5%thinking reasoning |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4 reported by Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4 · 5 results | ||
| Multi-turn tasks · BFCL% correct, higher is better 20 · 4 of 81 measured | 45.4%bfcl fc | 68.4%bfcl fc |
| Relevance detection · BFCL% correct, higher is better 8 · 63 of 81 measured | 93.8%bfcl prompt | 68.8%bfcl prompt |
| Single-turn calls (curated) · BFCL% correct, higher is better 2 · 5 of 81 measured | 90.3%bfcl prompt | 89.7%bfcl prompt |
| Single-turn calls (user-contributed) · BFCL% correct, higher is better 15 · 11 of 81 measured | 78.7%bfcl prompt | 79.8%bfcl fc |
| Web search · BFCL% correct, higher is better 20 · 1 of 81 measured | 54.0%bfcl fc | 84.5%bfcl fc |
Compare them with other models
Quick answers
Is Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507 better than Claude Opus 4.5?
Pick Claude Opus 4.5 if quality matters most: it scores higher (Intelligence Index 29.1 against 12.0). Pick Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507 if cost matters more: it costs 33 times less per token.
Which is cheaper, Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507 or Claude Opus 4.5?
Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507 is cheaper: $0.30 against $10.00 per million tokens, 33 times less.
Which is better for agents and tool use, Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507 or Claude Opus 4.5?
Claude Opus 4.5 ranks 38 of 166 models on sale for multi-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls, against 52 for Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507.
Which is better for reasoning and knowledge, Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507 or Claude Opus 4.5?
Claude Opus 4.5 ranks 67 of 200 models on sale for hard questions across science, maths and general knowledge, against 131 for Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507.
Which is better for writing, Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507 or Claude Opus 4.5?
Claude Opus 4.5 ranks 18 of 189 models on sale for what people prefer in blind comparisons, and judged writing quality, against 86 for Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507.
Which is better for sticking to the facts, Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507 or Claude Opus 4.5?
Claude Opus 4.5 ranks 73 of 153 models on sale for summarising without inventing things, and factual answers, against 99 for Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507.
Which has the bigger context window, Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507 or Claude Opus 4.5?
Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507: 262,144 tokens, against 200,000 for Claude Opus 4.5.
Run Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507 and Claude Opus 4.5 on your own prompt
Benchmarks aren't your data. Try both side by side in the playground, with the cost of every answer.