Claude Opus 4 vs Qwen3.6 Plus
Compare Claude Opus 4 and Qwen3.6 Plus side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, OCR, and Open Prompt.
Compare Claude Opus 4 vs Qwen3.6 Plus live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
Extract and compare text from images across multiple models.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Claude Opus 4 is deprecated and can no longer be run. Details and evals are still available on its model page.
Models in this comparison
Claude Opus 4 vs Qwen3.6 Plus: Overview
Claude 4 Opus, released by Anthropic in May 2025, is the flagship model of the Claude 4 family, built for complex, long-horizon reasoning and advanced coding workflows. It is multimodal, supporting text (including voice), images, and tool use, and operates as a hybrid reasoning model—able to deliver quick answers in fast mode or switch to extended thinking for deeper, multi-step problem solving. With a ~200,000-token context window and a training cutoff around March 2025, it is optimized for handling large documents, long conversations, and sophisticated agentic tasks.
Positioned at the high end of Anthropic’s offerings, Opus 4 achieves state-of-the-art results on coding benchmarks like SWE-Bench (72.5%) and Terminal-Bench (43.2%). It is best suited for research, enterprise automation, and software development at scale. The model is classified at Anthropic’s ASL-3 safety level, denoting advanced oversight and safety features.
Qwen3.6 Plus is a flagship model in Alibaba’s Qwen Plus series, designed for agentic workflows, coding, and multi-step reasoning. It supports a 1 million token context window and up to 65,536 output tokens, with built-in reasoning capabilities. The model is available as a hosted, proprietary API through Alibaba Cloud.
Compared to Qwen3.5, it improves reliability in multi-step execution and frontend code generation, with stronger performance on agentic coding tasks. It also supports document and image understanding, though its vision capabilities are more limited than dedicated Qwen-VL models. Qwen3.6 Plus is part of a broader Qwen ecosystem that includes both closed-source APIs and open-weight models.
Claude Opus 4 vs Qwen3.6 Plus Comparison Table
| Property | Claude Opus 4 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | Qwen |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | May 2025 | Apr 2026 |
| Context Window | 200K | 1.0M |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $15.00 | $0.325 |
| Output $/1M | $75.00 | $1.95 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | |
| Object Detection | ||
| OCR | Demo | |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | |
| Classification | ||
| Model Features | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | ||
| Visual Understanding | ||
| Overall Score | 56.72% | 68.66% |
| Avg Response Time | 19.74s | 34.17s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 1.2K | |
| Median output tokens | 47 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0005 | |
| Defect Detection | 66.7%(10/15) | 86.7%(13/15) |
| Document Understanding | 88.9%(8/9) | 77.8%(7/9) |
| Object Counting | 0%(0/10) | 20%(2/10) |
| Object Understanding | 64.3%(9/14) | 78.6%(11/14) |
| Spatial Understanding | 57.9%(11/19) | 68.4%(13/19) |
| OCR | ||
| Overall Score | 58.52% | |
| Avg Response Time | 5.49s | |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 124 | |
| Median output tokens | 18 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0001 | |
| Focused Scene OCR | 76.8%(76/99) | |
| Handwritten Math | 80%(8/10) | |
| License Plate Recognition | 13.3%(4/30) | |
| Text Recognition | 50%(15/30) | |
| VQA & Extraction | 51.7%(31/60) | |
Output tokens (incl. reasoning) and est. cost / task are measured on this benchmark from a single low-temperature run, and shown only for models whose run covered at least 90% of prompts. Methodology