Model Comparison
Claude 3 Opus
vs. Qwen3.5 2B (Reasoning)
Comparing 2 AI models · 11 benchmarks · Anthropic, Alibaba
Recommended Pick
An Claude 3 Opus 8 metric wins Strongest on: TTFT, Latency, Reasoning
Best Value
Qwen3.5 2B (Reasoning)
100.0 value score
21.3 reasoning / $0.04/1M
Lowest Price
Qwen3.5 2B (Reasoning)
$0.02/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Claude 3 Opus
27.5 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
Claude 3 Opus
19.5 coding index
Composite Indices
Higher is better; speed and price are normalized
Standard Benchmarks
Only benchmarks with data are shown
Differences That Matter
Best value
Qwen3.5 2B (Reasoning) has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Price gap
Qwen3.5 2B (Reasoning) is 750x cheaper on input tokens than Claude 3 Opus.
Reasoning gap
Claude 3 Opus leads Qwen3.5 2B (Reasoning) by 6.1 points on reasoning.
Coding gap
Claude 3 Opus leads Qwen3.5 2B (Reasoning) by 16.0 points on coding.
Top-pick rationale
Claude 3 Opus wins 8 measurable categories, including TTFT, Latency, Reasoning, Intelligence.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
Claude 3 Opus
Anthropic
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Qwen3.5 2B (Reasoning)
Alibaba
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | Top Pick An Claude 3 Opus | Al Qwen3.5 2B (Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $15.00/1M | $0.02/1M |
| Output Cost | $75.00/1M | $0.10/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $30.00/1M | $0.04/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Anthropic | Alibaba |
| Release Date | Mar 4, 2024 | Mar 2, 2026 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | — | 21.7 tok/s |
| TTFT | — | 1162ms |
| Latency | — | 93183ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 0.2 | 100.0 |
| Reasoning Score | 27.5 | 21.3 |
| Intelligence | 18.0 | 16.3 |
| Coding | 19.5 | 3.5 |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 48.9% | 45.6% |
| MMLU Pro | 69.6% | — |
| HLE | 3.1% | 2.1% |
| LiveCodeBench | 27.9% | — |
| MATH 500 | 64.1% | — |
| AIME (Original) | 3.3% | — |
| SciCode | 23.3% | 2.8% |
| LCR | — | 23.7% |
| IFBench | — | 31.5% |
| TAU-bench v2 | — | 69.0% |
| TerminalBench Hard | — | 3.8% |
Key Takeaways
Qwen3.5 2B (Reasoning) offers the best value at $0.02/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
Claude 3 Opus has the strongest reasoning profile with a 27.5 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
Claude 3 Opus reaches a 19.5 coding index, making it the top choice for software development and code generation tasks.
All models support context windows of ∞+ tokens, suitable for processing lengthy documents and maintaining extended conversations.
When to Choose Each Model
Claude 3 Opus
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
- Code generation
- Software development
Qwen3.5 2B (Reasoning)
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
