Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.5 vs Qwen3.7 Plus

Claude Opus 4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.5 to 45.3 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.7 Plus costs 14× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 27 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.5 Anthropic

50.5

Rank #47 Confirmed

Qwen3.7 Plus Alibaba (Qwen)

45.3

Rank #72 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 27 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.5 scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen3.7 Plus in 3 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in agentic & tool use, where Claude Opus 4.5 leads 47.3 to 21.4.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 52.5% for Claude Opus 4.5 and 74.8% for Qwen3.7 Plus.
  • Qwen3.7 Plus is cheaper at $0.40 / $1.60 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.5.
  • Qwen3.7 Plus accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 200K.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.5Qwen3.7 Plus
ProviderAnthropicAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index50.545.3
Released2025-11-012026-06-02
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
Context window200K1M
Max output64K131K
Input $ / M tokens$5$0.40
Output $ / M tokens$25$1.60
Results tracked6932

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 54.8 (#27), Qwen3.7 Plus: 36.6 (#206)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Coding15041473
SWE-bench Verified76.7%—
FrontierCode—10.2%
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)76.8%—
LMArena WebDev1494—
SWE-bench Multilingual70.7%—
SciCode—45.5%
GSO26.5%—
WeirdML63.7%—
ALE-Bench1,025—
AlgoTune1.77—

Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 47.3 (#12), Qwen3.7 Plus: 21.4 (#138)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen3.7 Plus
Terminal-Bench63.1%—
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard77.5%—
OSWorld 2.0—2.8%
GDPval45.5%—
Remote Labor Index3.8%—
τ²-bench Airline84%—
τ²-bench Banking24.7%—
τ²-bench Retail79.6%—
τ²-bench Telecom92.3%—
Cybench82%—
DeepResearch Bench54.8%—
OSWorld66.3%—
BALROG43.5%—
LMArena Search1180—
METR Time Horizons75%—
Vending-Bench 24,967—

Reasoning Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 42.6 (#51), Qwen3.7 Plus: 39.3 (#59)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen3.7 Plus
NYT Connections (extended)52.5%74.8%
Chess Puzzles12%24%
LMArena Hard Prompts14761460
Mystery Game Puzzles22%17%
DTBench89.9%84%
LMCA44.5%37.6%
Epoch Capabilities Index150.09147.37
ARC-AGI-237.6%—
SimpleBench62%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark80.2%—
ARC-AGI-180%—
CritPt—9.1%
EnigmaEval11.9%—
EBR-Bench14.3%—
ForecastBench60.7—

Math Qwen3.7 Plus leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 38.6 (#132), Qwen3.7 Plus: 50.5 (#56)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen3.7 Plus
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)34.4%34.4%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202586.1%93.3%
LMArena Math14631466
FrontierMath Tier 44.9%—
ProofBench36%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)20.7%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)4.2%—

Knowledge Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 56.5 (#44), Qwen3.7 Plus: 54.9 (#51)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen3.7 Plus
GPQA Diamond86%87.9%
LMArena Expert14871467
Humanity's Last Exam25.2%—
SimpleQA Verified45.7%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate10.9%—

Multimodal Qwen3.7 Plus leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 31.4 (#107), Qwen3.7 Plus: 41.8 (#33)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Document14621444
LMArena Vision—1279
GeoBench75%—
VPCT40%—
Furniture Assembly28.3%—

Multilingual Too close to call

Claude Opus 4.5: 54.3 (#47), Qwen3.7 Plus: 54.8 (#38)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Non-English14381445
LMArena Chinese14701510
LMArena French14711473
LMArena German14491471
LMArena Japanese14161413
LMArena Korean14241415
LMArena Russian14471457
LMArena Spanish14581457

Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 77.5 (#19), Qwen3.7 Plus: 75.8 (#52)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Instruction Following14781440

Long Context Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 46.5 (#22), Qwen3.7 Plus: 44.5 (#65)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Longer Query14801455
CL-bench21.1%—

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 68.1 (#28), Qwen3.7 Plus: 64.3 (#56)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Text14511455
LMArena Creative Writing14451439
LMArena Multi-Turn14661460
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1687—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.5 better than Qwen3.7 Plus?

Claude Opus 4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.5 to 45.3 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.7 Plus costs 14× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.5 or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus is cheaper. It lists at $0.40 per million input tokens and $1.60 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.5 lists at $5 and $25.

Is Claude Opus 4.5 or Qwen3.7 Plus better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 54.8 versus 36.6 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.7 Plus does, with 1M tokens against 200K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.5 and Qwen3.7 Plus share?

27 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.5 has 69 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Plus has 32.

Related comparisons

Go deeper