Roboflow

Claude Opus 5.5 vs Qwen3.5-27B

Compare Claude Opus 5.5 and Qwen3.5-27B side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, OCR, Classification, Object Detection, and Open Prompt.

Compare Claude Opus 5.5 vs Qwen3.5-27B live

Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.

Detect and compare bounding boxes across models on the same image.

Open Object Detection in the full playground
AnthropicClaude Opus 5.5
Run to compare this model.
QwenQwen3.5-27B
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Claude Opus 5.5 vs Qwen3.5-27B on Vision Evals

Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher on all 4 Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Reasoning, where Claude Opus 5.5 leads 83.0% to 58.1%.

Overall, Claude Opus 5.5 averages 82.0% (#3 of 63) against 64.1% (#30 of 63) for Qwen3.5-27B.

Qwen3.5-27B is cheaper ($0.0043 vs $0.015 per sample), while Claude Opus 5.5 is faster (7.6s vs 80.4s per sample).

Claude Opus 5.5Qwen3.5-27B

Claude Opus 5.5 vs Qwen3.5-27B Comparison Table

Evals updated October 13, 2026Pricing updated October 17, 2026

PropertyClaude Opus 5.5Qwen3.5-27B
OrganizationAnthropicQwen
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateSep 2026Feb 2026
Context Window1.0M262K
ParametersUnknown27B
LicenseProprietaryApache 2.0
Commercial usecommercial use per vendor termsfree for commercial use
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$4.00$0.260
Output $/1M$20.00$2.60
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
Image TaggingSupportedSupported
Multi-Label ClassificationSupportedSupported
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision LanguageSupportedSupported
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Model Features
Foundation VisionSupportedSupported
LLMs with Vision CapabilitiesSupportedSupported
Multimodal VisionSupportedSupported
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
82.0%
64.1%
4/5 tasks
Quantizationsself-hosted
BF1664.1%FP860.9%AWQ-INT461.2%hardware →
Avg cost / sample$0.015$0.0043
Avg speed / sample7.63s80.37s
By task
Object Detection (low)
74.5%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.0 to 75.0
$0.021
50.5%
±3.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 46.1 to 53.0
$0
Object Detection (high)
76.0%
±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.7 to 77.0
$0.030
–
Counting (low)
80.6%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 82.4
$0.0081
67.6%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 66.2 to 68.9
$0
Counting (high)
82.0%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.7 to 83.8
$0.0098
–
Identification (low)
93.8%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 93.8
$0.0058
80.2%
±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.0 to 84.4
$0
Identification (high)
95.8%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 96.9
$0.0067
–
OCR (low)
78.3%
$0.016
–
by category
Single value
67.8%
Transcription
96.7%
Structured JSON
91.5%
Text localization
61.0%
OCR (high)
79.9%
$0.023
–
by category
Single value
69.6%
Transcription
96.1%
Structured JSON
94.1%
Text localization
61.1%
Reasoning (low)
83.0%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.1 to 84.1
$0.0090
58.1%
±2.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 55.6 to 60.3
$0
Reasoning (high)
85.9%
±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.8 to 88.1
$0.011
–

Claude Opus 5.5 vs Qwen3.5-27B: Overview

Claude Opus 5.5

Claude Opus 5.5 is a proprietary multimodal reasoning model from Anthropic and the first entry in the Claude 5.5 family. It accepts interleaved text and image input and returns text, with a one million token context window and up to 128,000 output tokens per response. Adaptive thinking is always enabled on this model and cannot be disabled; thinking depth is instead governed by an effort parameter with five levels, where medium is the default, a change from the high default used by Claude Opus 5 and earlier Opus models. Anthropic reports a knowledge cutoff of June 2026.

On the visual side, Anthropic characterizes Opus 5.5 as its strongest Opus release for vision and computer use, describing improved reading of dense documents, charts, screenshots, and diagrams for document extraction and visual analysis tasks. Published results include 89.0% on Chartography with tools and 81.8% on OSWorld 2.0 under partial credit scoring, alongside 48.7% under strict scoring reported in the system card. The accompanying system card states that Opus 5.5 scored higher than Opus 5 on every evaluation in its capability summary, with the largest gains concentrated in agentic coding, visual reasoning, computer use, and long-horizon knowledge work. The model ships with safety classifiers covering biology and cybersecurity that can route blocked requests to earlier Claude models.

Qwen3.5-27B

Qwen3.5-27B is a multimodal dense hybrid model developed by Alibaba Cloud’s Qwen team and released in February 2026 as a high-precision entry in the Qwen3.5 "Medium" series. Unlike its Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) siblings, the 27B model utilizes a dense architecture combining Gated Delta Networks with a feed-forward structure, activating its full parameter suite for every inference to maximize reliability. This design provides the highest instruction-following and coding accuracy in its class, with a notable IFEval score of 95.0. The model features a native 262K-token context window, extensible to 1M tokens via YaRN (RoPE scaling), and is released under the Apache-2.0 license.

Optimized for agentic workflows, Qwen3.5-27B employs an early-fusion architecture that treats visual and textual data as a unified stream for deep cross-modal reasoning. This unified approach allows the model to excel in technical analysis and software engineering, matching GPT-5-mini with a 72.4% score on SWE-bench Verified. While the larger MoE variants in the family lead in raw knowledge benchmarks, the 27B model offers a stable and high-density alternative for structured data extraction and spatial perception, contributing to the Qwen3.5 family’s generational leap in OCR accuracy over the previous Qwen3-VL series.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Claude Opus 5.5 performed better. It scores higher on all 4 vision tasks and averages 82.0% (#3 of 63) against 64.1% (#30 of 63) for Qwen3.5-27B. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.

Yes. On the Vision Evals Reasoning benchmark at low effort, Claude Opus 5.5 leads with 83.0% against 58.1%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Qwen3.5-27B is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0043 per sample against $0.015. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

Claude Opus 5.5 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 7.6s per inference against 80.4s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.

Yes. The comparison demo on this page runs both models on the same image side by side for image captioning and OCR in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.