Roboflow

Claude Opus 5 vs Qwen3.5 27B

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

Compare Claude Opus 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
Run to compare this model.
QwenQwen3.5 27B
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Anthropic

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

Claude Opus 5 scores higher on 5 of the six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Reasoning, where Claude Opus 5 leads 71.5% to 31.8%.

Overall, Claude Opus 5 averages 77.0% (#8 of 25) against 64.3% (#22 of 25) for Qwen3.5 27B.

Qwen3.5 27B is both cheaper ($0.0007 vs $0.017 per sample) and faster (7.4s vs 7.4s per sample).

Claude Opus 5Qwen3.5 27B

Claude Opus 5 vs Qwen3.5 27B Comparison Table

Evals updated August 6, 2026Pricing updated August 11, 2026

PropertyClaude Opus 5Qwen3.5 27B
OrganizationAnthropicQwen
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateJul 2026Feb 2026
Context Window1.0M262K
Parameters27B
LicenseProprietaryApache 2.0
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$5.00$0.195
Output $/1M$25.00$1.56
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question Answering
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question Answering
Multi-Label Classification
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Image Tagging
Model Features
Foundation Vision
LLMs with Vision Capabilities
Multimodal Vision
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
77.0%
64.3%
Avg cost / sample$0.017$0.0007
Avg speed / sample7.38s7.38s
By task
Object Detection
54.0%
$0.027
58.8%
$0.0013
Counting
70.3%
$0.0096
54.0%
$0.0002
Identification
84.4%
$0.0072
78.1%
$0.0002
OCR
93.2%
$0.020
84.5%
$0.0009
Data Extraction
88.7%
$0.0080
78.3%
$0.0002
Reasoning (low)
71.5%
$0.010
31.8%
$0.0002
Reasoning (high)
74.2%
$0.018
61.6%
$0.0065

Claude Opus 5 vs Qwen3.5 27B: Overview

Claude Opus 5

Claude Opus 5 is a large language model with multimodal vision capabilities developed by Anthropic, released on July 24, 2026 as the fourth model in the Claude 5 family. It sits in the Opus tier of Anthropic's lineup, positioned below the Mythos-class Fable 5 and Mythos 5 models, and is framed by Anthropic as the go-to model for most knowledge work and automation tasks. The model approaches Fable 5's capabilities at roughly half the cost, priced at $5 per million input tokens and $25 per million output tokens. It becomes the default model on Claude Max and the strongest model available on Claude Pro. The model ships with a 1 million token context window and an adjustable "effort" parameter that allows users to trade reasoning depth for speed and token savings. Early enterprise customers reported that Opus 5 achieved comparable performance to Opus 4.8's maximum-reasoning mode while generating significantly fewer tokens on average, and demonstrated higher accuracy on financial modeling tasks with fewer tool calls and less time.

Claude Opus 5 supports multimodal inputs including images and text, and is designed for agentic workflows, coding, scientific research, and complex enterprise tasks. Anthropic reports the model scores 10.2 percentage points higher than Opus 4.8 on an internal chemistry benchmark, making it the most capable generally available model for scientific research in the Claude lineup. Cyber classifiers on Opus 5 are designed to intervene approximately 85 percent less often than those on Fable 5, with fallback to Opus 4.8 when a classifier triggers. The model does not retain user data for 30 days, unlike Fable 5. It is available across Anthropic's platforms including Claude Code and Claude Cowork, as well as cloud partners.

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 performed better. It scores higher on 5 of the six vision tasks and averages 77.0% (#8 of 25) against 64.3% (#22 of 25) 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 leads with 71.5% against 31.8%. 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 $0.0007 per sample against $0.017. Claude Opus 5 is priced at $5.00 per 1M input tokens and $25.00 per 1M output; Qwen3.5 27B is priced at $0.20 per 1M input tokens and $1.56 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

Qwen3.5 27B is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 7.4s per inference against 7.4s. 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.