Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) vs. Qwen2.5 Turbo
Comparison between Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) and Qwen2.5 Turbo across intelligence, price, speed, context window and more.
For details relating to our methodology, see our Methodology page.
Highlights
Model Comparison
Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) | Qwen2.5 Turbo | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence Index | 39* | 6* | Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) is more intelligent than Qwen2.5 Turbo |
| Price per 1M Tokens | $3.85 | $0.07 | Qwen2.5 Turbo is cheaper than Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) |
| Output Speed | 41 tokens/s | 106 tokens/s | Qwen2.5 Turbo is faster than Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) |
| Time to First Token | 2.35s | 2.17s | Qwen2.5 Turbo responds faster than Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) |
| Context Window | 1000k tokens~1,500 A4 pages of size 12 Arial font | 1000k tokens~1,500 A4 pages of size 12 Arial font | Both Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) and Qwen2.5 Turbo have the same sized context window |
| Release Date | February 2026 | November 2024 | Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) has a more recent release date than Qwen2.5 Turbo |
| Reasoning | No | No | Neither Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) nor Qwen2.5 Turbo have reasoning |
| Image Input Support | Yes | No | Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) has image input support while Qwen2.5 Turbo does not |
| Open Source (Weights) | No | No | Both Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) and Qwen2.5 Turbo are proprietary |
Intelligence
Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index
Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index by Open Weights / Proprietary
Intelligence Evaluations
Agentic real-world work tasks, (Elo-500)/2000
Agentic tool use
Agentic coding & terminal use
Coding
Reasoning & knowledge
Scientific reasoning
Physics reasoning
Knowledge
1 - hallucination rate
Long context reasoning
Agentic knowledge work, Elo
Agentic SaaS workflows
Legal agentic work, criterion pass rate
Agentic business operations
Quantitative analysis on spreadsheets & documents
Instruction following
Long-horizon agentic tasks
Kubernetes incident root-cause analysis
Visual reasoning
AA-Briefcase
AA-Briefcase Elo
AA-Omniscience
AA-Omniscience Index
Openness Index
Artificial Analysis Openness Index: Score
Intelligence Index Comparisons
Intelligence Index vs. Cost per Intelligence Index Task
Token Use
Output Tokens per Intelligence Index Task
Cost
Cost per Intelligence Index Task
Cost to Run Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index
Pricing: Cache Hit, Input, and Output
Context Window
Context Window
Speed
Measured by Output Speed (tokens per second)
Output Speed
Time per Intelligence Index Task
Latency
Measured by Time (seconds) to First Token
Latency: Time To First Answer Token
End-to-End Response Time
Seconds to output 500 tokens, calculated based on time to first token, 'thinking' time for reasoning models, and output speed
End-to-End Response Time
Model Size (Open Weights Models Only)
Model Size: Total and Active Parameters
Frequently Asked Questions
Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) is more intelligent. Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) scores 39 (estimated), compared with Qwen2.5 Turbo at 6 (estimated) on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index.
Qwen2.5 Turbo is faster. Qwen2.5 Turbo generates 106.0 tokens per second, compared with Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) at 41.0 tokens per second.
Qwen2.5 Turbo is cheaper. Qwen2.5 Turbo costs $0.07 per 1M tokens, compared with Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) at $3.85 per 1M tokens (7:2:1 cache hit/input/output ratio).
Qwen2.5 Turbo has lower latency. Qwen2.5 Turbo has a time to first token of 2.17s, compared with Claude Opus 4.6 (Non-reasoning, High Effort) at 2.35s.
Both models have a context window of 1.0M tokens.