Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking vs Qwen3.7 Plus

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 13 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

57.44/100
Margin
9.8pts
winning →
67.22/100
0 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking #69 (Estimated); Qwen3.7 Plus #21 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking and Qwen3.7 Plus share 13 comparable benchmark results. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 3 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking; 56 to Qwen3.7 Plus.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
13
Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking only
3
Qwen3.7 Plus only
56
Comparable categories
0 / 8

Benchmark data for Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking and Qwen3.7 Plus is coming soon on BenchLM.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 13 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 0 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

BenchLM has partial data for these models, but not enough overlapping benchmark coverage to produce a fair score-level comparison yet.

Qwen3.7 Plus has the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking.

Category breakdown

Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.

Category scores and score margins for Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking and Qwen3.7 Plus
CategoryClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingΔQwen3.7 Plus
AgenticClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus71.7
CodingClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus75.6
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus91.7
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus60.1
MathClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus92.9
MultilingualClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus85.4
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus81.5
Inst. FollowingClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus84.5

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingQwen3.7 PlusComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot availableQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot availableQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot availableQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.5 Thinking200KQwen3.7 Plus1MQwen3.7 Plus lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingQwen3.7 PlusResult
τ²-bench resultsSource 89.5%93%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —70.3%Not comparable
QwenClawBenchSource —61.8%Not comparable
QwenWebBenchSource —1536Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource —62.7%Not comparable
BFCL v4Source —72.9%Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource —73.2%Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource —45.6%Not comparable
DeepPlanningSource —62.3%Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource —73.3%Not comparable
AndroidWorldSource —81.0%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource —20.8%Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource —22.4%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —21.8%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —936Not comparable
OSWorld 2.0Source —2.8%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingQwen3.7 PlusResult
Vibe Code BenchSource 20.63%—Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 49.5%45.5%Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —70.3%Not comparable
SWE-bench VerifiedSource —77.7%Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource —57.6%Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource —75.8%Not comparable
NL2RepoSource —41.1%Not comparable
SciCodeSource —51.3%Not comparable
LiveCodeBenchSource —89.6%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource —55.9%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingQwen3.7 PlusResult
AA-LCRSource 74.0%65.0%Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking leads
CritPtSource 4.6%9.1%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
MRCRv2Source —91.7%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingQwen3.7 PlusResult
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 40.8%39.0%Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 86.6%90.0%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
AA-HLESource 28.4%33.4%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 13.3%2.4%Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 45.7%22.2%Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 59.8%25.5%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
AA MMLU-ProSource 89.5%—Not comparable
GPQASource —90.3%Not comparable
GPQA-DSource —90.3%Not comparable
HLESource —34.7%Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource —88.5%Not comparable
MMLU-ReduxSource —94.5%Not comparable
SuperGPQASource —71.4%Not comparable
MMMLUSource —89.0%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingQwen3.7 PlusResult
HMMT Feb 2026Source —92.9%Not comparable
IMOAnswerBenchSource —86.0%Not comparable
ApexSource —22.7%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingQwen3.7 PlusResult
AA Global-MMLU-LiteSource 91.3%—Not comparable
MMLU-ProXSource —85.4%Not comparable
NOVA-63Source —58.8%Not comparable
INCLUDESource —83.0%Not comparable
MAXIFESource —88.8%Not comparable
PolyMathSource —84.0%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingQwen3.7 PlusResult
AA-MMMU-ProSource 74.0%80.5%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
Design Arena WebsiteSource 12771288Qwen3.7 Plus leads
MMMU-ProSource —79%Not comparable
MathVisionSource —90.3%Not comparable
CharXivSource —85.9%Not comparable
ERQASource —69.8%Not comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)Source —71.0%Not comparable
ScreenSpot ProSource —79.0%Not comparable
SimpleVQASource —81.7%Not comparable
MMSearch-PlusSource —41.4%Not comparable
RealWorldQASource —86.9%Not comparable
OmniDocBench 1.5Source —91.4%Not comparable
OCRBench V2Source —70.7%Not comparable
ODINW13Source —51.1%Not comparable
Video-MME (with subtitle)Source —88.0%Not comparable
VideoMMMUSource —85.4%Not comparable
MLVU (M-Avg)Source —87.4%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingQwen3.7 PlusResult
AA-IFBenchSource 58.0%78.0%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
IFEvalSource —94.6%Not comparable
IFBenchSource —79.1%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Can I compare Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking and Qwen3.7 Plus on BenchLM yet?

Not fully yet. BenchLM is tracking both models, but the sourced benchmark breakdown for this comparison is still coming soon.

Why does this comparison show “coming soon”?

BenchLM only shows category winners and benchmark-level calls when we have sourced results that can be compared fairly. For these models, the public benchmark coverage is not complete enough yet.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Anthropic Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 23, 2026

Choose a model with this week’s evidence

Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.

One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.