Model Comparison
Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort)
vs. Qwen3 Max
Comparing 2 AI models · 10 benchmarks · Anthropic, Alibaba
Recommended Pick
An Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) 12 metric wins Strongest on: Throughput, TTFT, Latency
Best Value
Qwen3 Max
100.0 value score
56.1 reasoning / $3.05/1M
Lowest Price
Qwen3 Max
$1.66/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Qwen3 Max
56.1 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort)
47.6 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 Max has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Price gap
Qwen3 Max is 3.8x cheaper on input tokens than Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort).
Speed gap
Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) generates about 1.1x as many tokens per second as Qwen3 Max.
Reasoning gap
Qwen3 Max leads Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) by 6.4 points on reasoning.
Coding gap
Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) leads Qwen3 Max by 21.2 points on coding.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort)
Anthropic
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Qwen3 Max
Alibaba
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | Top Pick An Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) | Al Qwen3 Max |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $6.25/1M | $1.66/1M |
| Output Cost | $25.00/1M | $7.22/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $10.94/1M | $3.05/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Anthropic | Alibaba |
| Release Date | Feb 5, 2026 | Sep 23, 2025 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 59.6 tok/s | 53.7 tok/s |
| TTFT | 1017ms | 2108ms |
| Latency | 1017ms | 2108ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 24.7 | 100.0 |
| Reasoning Score | 49.7 | 56.1 |
| Intelligence | 46.5 | 31.4 |
| Coding | 47.6 | 26.4 |
| Math | — | 80.7 |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 84.0% | 76.4% |
| MMLU Pro | — | 84.1% |
| HLE | 18.6% | 11.1% |
| LiveCodeBench | — | 76.7% |
| AIME 2025 | — | 80.7% |
| SciCode | 45.7% | 38.3% |
| LCR | 58.3% | 46.7% |
| IFBench | 44.6% | 44.1% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 84.8% | 74.3% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 48.5% | 20.5% |
Key Takeaways
Qwen3 Max offers the best value at $1.66/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
Qwen3 Max has the strongest reasoning profile with a 56.1 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) reaches a 47.6 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 Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort)
- Code generation
- Software development
Qwen3 Max
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
