Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.7 vs Qwen3.5 397B-A17B

Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 46.0 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5 397B-A17B costs 7.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 33 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.7 Anthropic

58.3

Rank #19 Confirmed

Qwen3.5 397B-A17B Alibaba (Qwen)

46.0

Rank #67 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 33 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher in 10 categories and Qwen3.5 397B-A17B in 0 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Claude Opus 4.7 leads 66.7 to 46.1.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3): 70.2% for Claude Opus 4.7 and 31.2% for Qwen3.5 397B-A17B.
  • Qwen3.5 397B-A17B is cheaper at $0.60 / $3.60 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.7.
  • Claude Opus 4.7 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 262K.
  • Qwen3.5 397B-A17B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.7Qwen3.5 397B-A17B
ProviderAnthropicAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index58.346.0
Released2026-04-142026-02-01
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M262K
Max output128K66K
Input $ / M tokens$5$0.60
Output $ / M tokens$25$3.60
Results tracked6636

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), Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 42.0 (#114)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3.5 397B-A17B
LMArena WebDev15581400
LMArena Coding15181465
SWE-bench Verified83.5%—
FrontierCode38.5%—
SciCode54.5%—
GSO44.1%—
WeirdML76.4%—
MirrorCode31.1%—
ALE-Bench1,323—

Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 47.9 (#10), Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 33.3 (#53)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3.5 397B-A17B
APEX-Agents49.2%24.9%
τ²-bench Banking40.2%9.8%
Terminal-Bench80.2%—
OSWorld 2.018.2%—
τ²-bench Airline—81.5%
τ²-bench Retail—84.4%
τ²-bench Telecom—97.8%
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), Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 34.5 (#70)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3.5 397B-A17B
Kagi LLM Benchmark80.7%73.7%
NYT Connections (extended)39%58.9%
Chess Puzzles30%13%
Thematic Generalization72.8%65.1%
LMArena Hard Prompts15061448
Mystery Game Puzzles28%18%
DTBench94.7%87.5%
LMCA52.2%37.9%
Epoch Capabilities Index156.25146.65
ARC-AGI-275.8%—
SimpleBench61.7%—
ARC-AGI-193.5%—
CritPt12%—
EBR-Bench19%—
ForecastBench60.3—

Math Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 66.7 (#26), Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 46.1 (#73)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3.5 397B-A17B
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)70.2%31.2%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202597.8%88.9%
LMArena Math14991454
FrontierMath Tier 431.7%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions73.6%—
ProofBench54%—
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), Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 53.3 (#58)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3.5 397B-A17B
GPQA Diamond90.2%86.4%
LMArena Expert15211462
Humanity's Last Exam36.2%—
SimpleQA Verified51.7%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate12%—

Multimodal Too close to call

Claude Opus 4.7: 41.2 (#38), Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 40.7 (#44)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3.5 397B-A17B
LMArena Vision13161263
Blueprint-Bench 224.5%—
Furniture Assembly33.3%—
LMArena Document1495—

Multilingual Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 57.3 (#10), Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 53.7 (#59)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3.5 397B-A17B
LMArena Non-English14801430
LMArena Chinese15311500
LMArena French15031461
LMArena German14951447
LMArena Japanese14721426
LMArena Korean14641384
LMArena Russian14941429
LMArena Spanish14951441

Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 78.4 (#10), Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 75.0 (#77)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3.5 397B-A17B
LMArena Instruction Following14981424

Long Context Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 46.2 (#25), Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 44.1 (#74)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3.5 397B-A17B
LMArena Longer Query15051442

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 75.1 (#8), Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 62.3 (#79)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3.5 397B-A17B
LMArena Text14901438
LMArena Creative Writing14861401
EQ-Bench Creative Writing19141478
LMArena Multi-Turn15051446
EQ-Bench 41311—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.7 better than Qwen3.5 397B-A17B?

Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 46.0 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5 397B-A17B costs 7.4× 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 Qwen3.5 397B-A17B?

Qwen3.5 397B-A17B is cheaper. It lists at $0.60 per million input tokens and $3.60 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.7 lists at $5 and $25.

Is Claude Opus 4.7 or Qwen3.5 397B-A17B better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 59.6 versus 42.0 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 4.7 does, with 1M tokens against 262K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.7 and Qwen3.5 397B-A17B share?

33 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.7 has 66 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5 397B-A17B has 36.

Related comparisons

Go deeper