Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.8 vs Qwen3.7 Max

Claude Opus 4.8 is the stronger model overall, scoring 60.7 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 4.8's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 32 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.8 Anthropic

60.7

Rank #13 Confirmed

Qwen3.7 Max Alibaba (Qwen)

51.5

Rank #42 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 32 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.8 scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen3.7 Max in 2 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in agentic & tool use, where Claude Opus 4.8 leads 47.6 to 22.1.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is GBAEval: 70.9% for Claude Opus 4.8 and 0.4% 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 4.8.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.8Qwen3.7 Max
ProviderAnthropicAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index60.751.5
Released2026-05-282026-05-19
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
Context window1M1M
Max output128K131K
Input $ / M tokens$5$2.50
Output $ / M tokens$25$7.50
Results tracked6533

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

Category by category

Coding Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 59.9 (#12), Qwen3.7 Max: 50.4 (#45)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3.7 Max
LMArena WebDev15561515
SciCode53.5%48.8%
LMArena Coding14901498
ALE-Bench1,5641,189
SWE-bench Verified—77.3%
DeepSWE59%—
FrontierCode46.5%—
GSO47.1%—
WeirdML82.9%—

Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 47.6 (#11), Qwen3.7 Max: 22.1 (#135)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3.7 Max
GBAEval70.9%0.4%
APEX-Agents48.9%—
OSWorld 2.020.6%—
Remote Labor Index8.3%—
τ²-bench Banking39.7%—
DeepResearch Bench50.2%—
PostTrainBench33.8%—
GDP.pdf24%—
LMArena Search1204—
Vending-Bench 25,787—

Reasoning Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 64.7 (#16), Qwen3.7 Max: 49.2 (#38)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3.7 Max
SimpleBench64.8%70.4%
NYT Connections (extended)91.1%85.1%
CritPt20.9%13.4%
Chess Puzzles34%19%
EBR-Bench28.6%9.5%
LMArena Hard Prompts14821483
Mystery Game Puzzles36%32%
DTBench94.9%92.3%
LMCA57.5%44%
Epoch Capabilities Index158.21153.68
ARC-AGI-272.1%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark88.8%—
ARC-AGI-192.5%—
EnigmaEval23.5%—
Surface Evolver Bench87.5%—
Bench to the Future 30.14—
ForecastBench59.9—

Math Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 78.4 (#13), Qwen3.7 Max: 62.4 (#32)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3.7 Max
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)80%64.6%
FrontierMath Tier 456.1%34.1%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202598.3%95.6%
ProofBench69%26%
LMArena Math14871490
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions91.8%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)47.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)31.3%—

Knowledge Too close to call

Claude Opus 4.8: 61.3 (#29), Qwen3.7 Max: 61.6 (#28)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3.7 Max
GPQA Diamond91%90.9%
SimpleQA Verified53%55.8%
LMArena Expert15021488

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.8: 42.9 (#26), Qwen3.7 Max: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3.7 Max
LMArena Vision1294—
Blueprint-Bench 214.5%—
Furniture Assembly42.5%—
LMArena Document1475—

Multilingual Qwen3.7 Max leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 55.2 (#33), Qwen3.7 Max: 56.9 (#15)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3.7 Max
LMArena Non-English14501474
LMArena Chinese15071530
LMArena Russian14741484
LMArena French1481—
LMArena German1472—
LMArena Japanese1440—
LMArena Korean1432—
LMArena Spanish1466—

Instruction Following Too close to call

Claude Opus 4.8: 77.4 (#24), Qwen3.7 Max: 76.7 (#38)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3.7 Max
LMArena Instruction Following14761460

Long Context Too close to call

Claude Opus 4.8: 45.4 (#35), Qwen3.7 Max: 45.4 (#40)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3.7 Max
LMArena Longer Query14831482

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 72.0 (#16), Qwen3.7 Max: 65.0 (#54)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3.7 Max
LMArena Text14611476
LMArena Creative Writing14541449
EQ-Bench 412811110
LMArena Multi-Turn14761481
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1840—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.8 better than Qwen3.7 Max?

Claude Opus 4.8 is the stronger model overall, scoring 60.7 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 4.8's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.8 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 4.8 lists at $5 and $25.

Is Claude Opus 4.8 or Qwen3.7 Max better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.8 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 59.9 versus 50.4 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Both accept 1M tokens.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.8 and Qwen3.7 Max share?

32 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.8 has 65 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Max has 33.

Related comparisons

Go deeper