Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.7 vs Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B

Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 43.2 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B costs 8.2× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.7 Anthropic

58.3

Rank #19 Confirmed

Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B Alibaba (Qwen)

43.2

Rank #95 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher in 9 categories and Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B 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 39.0.
  • Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B is cheaper at $0.70 / $2.80 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-VL 235B-A22B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.7 and Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B specifications
Claude Opus 4.7Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B
ProviderAnthropicAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index58.343.2
Released2026-04-142025-04
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M131K
Max output128K33K
Input $ / M tokens$5$0.70
Output $ / M tokens$25$2.80
Results tracked6618

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-VL 235B-A22B: 42.4 (#100)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B
LMArena Coding15181439
SWE-bench Verified83.5%—
FrontierCode38.5%—
LMArena WebDev1558—
SciCode54.5%—
GSO44.1%—
WeirdML76.4%—
MirrorCode31.1%—
ALE-Bench1,323—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.7: 47.9 (#10), Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B
Terminal-Bench80.2%—
APEX-Agents49.2%—
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-VL 235B-A22B: 29.3 (#92)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B
LMArena Hard Prompts15061428
ARC-AGI-275.8%—
SimpleBench61.7%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark80.7%—
NYT Connections (extended)39%—
ARC-AGI-193.5%—
CritPt12%—
Chess Puzzles30%—
Thematic Generalization72.8%—
EBR-Bench19%—
Mystery Game Puzzles28%—
DTBench94.7%—
LMCA52.2%—
Epoch Capabilities Index156.25—
ForecastBench60.3—

Math Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 66.7 (#26), Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B: 39.0 (#118)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B
LMArena Math14991426
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)70.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 431.7%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions73.6%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202597.8%—
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-VL 235B-A22B: 40.3 (#121)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B
LMArena Expert15211442
GPQA Diamond90.2%—
Humanity's Last Exam36.2%—
SimpleQA Verified51.7%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate12%—

Multimodal Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 41.2 (#38), Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B: 39.8 (#55)

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B
LMArena Vision13161247
Blueprint-Bench 224.5%—
Furniture Assembly33.3%—
LMArena Document1495—

Multilingual Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 57.3 (#10), Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B: 51.9 (#97)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B
LMArena Non-English14801405
LMArena Chinese15311463
LMArena French15031452
LMArena German14951424
LMArena Japanese14721385
LMArena Korean14641394
LMArena Russian14941408
LMArena Spanish14951428

Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 78.4 (#10), Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B: 74.2 (#101)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B
LMArena Instruction Following14981406

Long Context Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 46.2 (#25), Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B: 43.4 (#98)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B
LMArena Longer Query15051420

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 75.1 (#8), Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B: 60.2 (#99)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B
LMArena Text14901420
LMArena Creative Writing14861366
LMArena Multi-Turn15051428
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1914—
EQ-Bench 41311—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.7 better than Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B?

Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 43.2 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B costs 8.2× 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-VL 235B-A22B?

Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B is cheaper. It lists at $0.70 per million input tokens and $2.80 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.7 lists at $5 and $25.

Is Claude Opus 4.7 or Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 59.6 versus 42.4 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-VL 235B-A22B share?

18 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.7 has 66 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3-VL 235B-A22B has 18.

Related comparisons

Go deeper