Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.7 vs Qwen3.7 Max

Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 51.5 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.7 Max costs 2.7× 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

Qwen3.7 Max Alibaba (Qwen)

51.5

Rank #42 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 33 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher in 9 categories and Qwen3.7 Max in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in agentic & tool use, where Claude Opus 4.7 leads 47.9 to 22.1.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 39% for Claude Opus 4.7 and 85.1% for Qwen3.7 Max.
  • Qwen3.7 Max is cheaper at $2.50 / $7.50 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.7.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.7Qwen3.7 Max
ProviderAnthropicAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index58.351.5
Released2026-04-142026-05-19
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
Context window1M1M
Max output128K131K
Input $ / M tokens$5$2.50
Output $ / M tokens$25$7.50
Results tracked6633

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), Qwen3.7 Max: 50.4 (#45)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3.7 Max
SWE-bench Verified83.5%77.3%
LMArena WebDev15581515
SciCode54.5%48.8%
LMArena Coding15181498
ALE-Bench1,3231,189
FrontierCode38.5%—
GSO44.1%—
WeirdML76.4%—
MirrorCode31.1%—

Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 47.9 (#10), Qwen3.7 Max: 22.1 (#135)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3.7 Max
GBAEval43.8%0.4%
Terminal-Bench80.2%—
APEX-Agents49.2%—
OSWorld 2.018.2%—
τ²-bench Banking40.2%—
PostTrainBench28.6%—
ExploitBench26.5%—
GDP.pdf21%—
LMArena Search1233—
Vending-Bench 210,937—

Reasoning Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 53.8 (#29), Qwen3.7 Max: 49.2 (#38)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3.7 Max
SimpleBench61.7%70.4%
NYT Connections (extended)39%85.1%
CritPt12%13.4%
Chess Puzzles30%19%
EBR-Bench19%9.5%
LMArena Hard Prompts15061483
Mystery Game Puzzles28%32%
DTBench94.7%92.3%
LMCA52.2%44%
Epoch Capabilities Index156.25153.68
ARC-AGI-275.8%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark80.7%—
ARC-AGI-193.5%—
Thematic Generalization72.8%—
ForecastBench60.3—

Math Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 66.7 (#26), Qwen3.7 Max: 62.4 (#32)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3.7 Max
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)70.2%64.6%
FrontierMath Tier 431.7%34.1%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202597.8%95.6%
ProofBench54%26%
LMArena Math14991490
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions73.6%—
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), Qwen3.7 Max: 61.6 (#28)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3.7 Max
GPQA Diamond90.2%90.9%
SimpleQA Verified51.7%55.8%
LMArena Expert15211488
Humanity's Last Exam36.2%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate12%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.7: 41.2 (#38), Qwen3.7 Max: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3.7 Max
LMArena Vision1316—
Blueprint-Bench 224.5%—
Furniture Assembly33.3%—
LMArena Document1495—

Multilingual Too close to call

Claude Opus 4.7: 57.3 (#10), Qwen3.7 Max: 56.9 (#15)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3.7 Max
LMArena Non-English14801474
LMArena Chinese15311530
LMArena Russian14941484
LMArena French1503—
LMArena German1495—
LMArena Japanese1472—
LMArena Korean1464—
LMArena Spanish1495—

Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 78.4 (#10), Qwen3.7 Max: 76.7 (#38)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3.7 Max
LMArena Instruction Following14981460

Long Context Too close to call

Claude Opus 4.7: 46.2 (#25), Qwen3.7 Max: 45.4 (#40)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3.7 Max
LMArena Longer Query15051482

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 75.1 (#8), Qwen3.7 Max: 65.0 (#54)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3.7 Max
LMArena Text14901476
LMArena Creative Writing14861449
EQ-Bench 413111110
LMArena Multi-Turn15051481
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1914—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.7 better than Qwen3.7 Max?

Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 51.5 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.7 Max costs 2.7× 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 Qwen3.7 Max?

Qwen3.7 Max is cheaper. It lists at $2.50 per million input tokens and $7.50 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.7 lists at $5 and $25.

Is Claude Opus 4.7 or Qwen3.7 Max better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 59.6 versus 50.4 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Both accept 1M tokens.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.7 and Qwen3.7 Max share?

33 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.7 has 66 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Max has 33.

Related comparisons

Go deeper