Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.7 vs Qwen3 14B

Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 35.5 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3 14B costs 16× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 10 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.7 Anthropic

58.3

Rank #19 Confirmed

Qwen3 14B Alibaba (Qwen)

35.5

Rank #225 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 10 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher in 6 categories and Qwen3 14B in 0 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Opus 4.7 leads 53.8 to 18.5.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is LMCA: 52.2% for Claude Opus 4.7 and 18.2% for Qwen3 14B.
  • Qwen3 14B is cheaper at $0.35 / $1.40 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.7.
  • Claude Opus 4.7 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 131K.
  • Qwen3 14B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.7Qwen3 14B
ProviderAnthropicAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index58.335.5
Released2026-04-142025-04
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M131K
Max output128K8K
Input $ / M tokens$5$0.35
Output $ / M tokens$25$1.40
Results tracked6612

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

Category by category

Coding Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 59.6 (#13), Qwen3 14B: 37.3 (#195)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3 14B
SciCode54.5%31.6%
SWE-bench Verified83.5%—
FrontierCode38.5%—
LMArena WebDev1558—
GSO44.1%—
WeirdML76.4%—
LMArena Coding1518—
MirrorCode31.1%—
ALE-Bench1,323—

Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 47.9 (#10), Qwen3 14B: 29.6 (#83)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3 14B
Terminal-Bench80.2%—
APEX-Agents49.2%—
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—41%
OSWorld 2.018.2%—
τ²-bench Banking40.2%—
PostTrainBench28.6%—
ExploitBench26.5%—
GBAEval43.8%—
GDP.pdf21%—
LMArena Search1233—
Vending-Bench 210,937—

Reasoning Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 53.8 (#29), Qwen3 14B: 18.5 (#280)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3 14B
Kagi LLM Benchmark80.7%49.1%
CritPt12%0%
Chess Puzzles30%4%
DTBench94.7%64%
LMCA52.2%18.2%
Epoch Capabilities Index156.25138.23
ARC-AGI-275.8%—
SimpleBench61.7%—
NYT Connections (extended)39%—
ARC-AGI-193.5%—
Thematic Generalization72.8%—
EBR-Bench19%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1506—
Mystery Game Puzzles28%—
ForecastBench60.3—

Math Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 66.7 (#26), Qwen3 14B: 38.6 (#133)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3 14B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202597.8%66.4%
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)70.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 431.7%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions73.6%—
ProofBench54%—
LMArena Math1499—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)43.8%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)22.9%—

Knowledge Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 62.6 (#23), Qwen3 14B: 39.3 (#134)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3 14B
GPQA Diamond90.2%63.8%
Vectara Hallucination Rate12%5.4%
Humanity's Last Exam36.2%—
SimpleQA Verified51.7%—
LMArena Expert1521—

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.7: 41.2 (#38), Qwen3 14B: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3 14B
LMArena Vision1316—
Blueprint-Bench 224.5%—
Furniture Assembly33.3%—
LMArena Document1495—

Multilingual Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.7: 57.3 (#10), Qwen3 14B: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3 14B
LMArena Non-English1480—
LMArena Chinese1531—
LMArena French1503—
LMArena German1495—
LMArena Japanese1472—
LMArena Korean1464—
LMArena Russian1494—
LMArena Spanish1495—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.7: 78.4 (#10), Qwen3 14B: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3 14B
LMArena Instruction Following1498—

Long Context Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 46.2 (#25), Qwen3 14B: 38.1 (#204)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3 14B
Fiction.LiveBench—62.5%
LMArena Longer Query1505—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.7: 75.1 (#8), Qwen3 14B: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3 14B
LMArena Text1490—
LMArena Creative Writing1486—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1914—
EQ-Bench 41311—
LMArena Multi-Turn1505—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.7 better than Qwen3 14B?

Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 35.5 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3 14B costs 16× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.7 or Qwen3 14B?

Qwen3 14B is cheaper. It lists at $0.35 per million input tokens and $1.40 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.7 lists at $5 and $25.

Is Claude Opus 4.7 or Qwen3 14B better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 59.6 versus 37.3 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 4.7 does, with 1M tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.7 and Qwen3 14B share?

10 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.7 has 66 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 14B has 12.

Related comparisons

Go deeper