Model A

Anthropic

60.24/100

Supported · Public rank #74

90% interval 50.9–69.6

Claude Opus 4.5 vs Qwen3.7 Plus

Updated September 4, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Model B

Qwen3.7 Plus

Alibaba

62.29/100

Supported · Public rank #60

90% interval 52.4–72.2

Decision reading

Qwen3.7 Plus has the higher public score estimate, 62.29 versus 60.24, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.

26 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Share or export

Share on X LinkedInSocial card CSV JSON

Which one for your work

Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.

Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Qwen3.7 Plus
Qwen3.7 Plus has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented

Show secondary and unsupported calls

Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
Qwen3.7 Plus is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Claude Opus 4.5 is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. Claude Opus 4.5 does not fit this workload in one request. Claude Opus 4.5 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Qwen3.7 Plus has no comparable published API token rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

19 Claude Opus 4.5 only

26 Shared

26 Qwen3.7 Plus only

Shared results: 26
Claude Opus 4.5 only: 19
Qwen3.7 Plus only: 26
Like-for-like categories: 3 / 8

3 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.

Multilingual

Like-for-like

Claude Opus 4.5: 82.9; #2/12
Qwen3.7 Plus: 78.9; #3/12
Basis: Provisional lane · 1 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading: Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Multimodal

Like-for-like

Claude Opus 4.5: 23.5; #46/48
Qwen3.7 Plus: 72.5; #18/48
Basis: Provisional lane · 2 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading: Qwen3.7 Plus leads

Instruction following

Like-for-like

Claude Opus 4.5: 39.5; #103/120
Qwen3.7 Plus: 91.1; #17/120
Basis: Provisional lane · 1 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading: Qwen3.7 Plus leads

Agentic

Directional only

Claude Opus 4.5: 44.4; Estimated · #101/151
Qwen3.7 Plus: 37.7; Supported · #126/151
Basis: BenchAlign lane · 15 vs 11 public rows
Reading: Directional only

Coding

Directional only

Claude Opus 4.5: 55.1; Supported · #42/183
Qwen3.7 Plus: 53.1; Estimated · #51/183
Basis: BenchAlign lane · 5 vs 7 public rows
Reading: Directional only

Knowledge

Directional only

Claude Opus 4.5: 55.4; Estimated · #60/181
Qwen3.7 Plus: 56.8; Estimated · #50/181
Basis: BenchAlign lane · 6 vs 7 public rows
Reading: Directional only

Reasoning

Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.5: 72.1; Unranked · 4 rankable rows
Qwen3.7 Plus: 73.7; Unranked · 3 rankable rows
Basis: Provisional lane · 1 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Math

Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.5: 58.3; #6/7
Qwen3.7 Plus: 78.3; Unranked · 3 rankable rows
Basis: Provisional lane · 4 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Category scores with the server-provided evidence basis for Claude Opus 4.5 and Qwen3.7 Plus
Category	Claude Opus 4.5	Qwen3.7 Plus	Basis	Reading
Multilingual	82.9#2/12	78.9#3/12	Like-for-likeProvisional lane · 1 vs 1 weighted rows	Claude Opus 4.5 leads
Multimodal	23.5#46/48	72.5#18/48	Like-for-likeProvisional lane · 2 vs 2 weighted rows	Qwen3.7 Plus leads
Instruction following	39.5#103/120	91.1#17/120	Like-for-likeProvisional lane · 1 vs 1 weighted rows	Qwen3.7 Plus leads
Agentic	44.4Estimated · #101/151	37.7Supported · #126/151	Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 15 vs 11 public rows	Directional only
Coding	55.1Supported · #42/183	53.1Estimated · #51/183	Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 5 vs 7 public rows	Directional only
Knowledge	55.4Estimated · #60/181	56.8Estimated · #50/181	Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 6 vs 7 public rows	Directional only
Reasoning	72.1Unranked · 4 rankable rows	73.7Unranked · 3 rankable rows	Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 1 weighted rows	Not comparable
Math	58.3#6/7	78.3Unranked · 3 rankable rows	Not comparableProvisional lane · 4 vs 1 weighted rows	Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

Shape of the matched evidence

Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.

Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.

IFBench
Instruction following
Claude Opus 4.5: 58%Qwen3.7 Plus: 79.1%Normalized gap 21.1Claude Opus 4.5 source Qwen3.7 Plus source
CharXiv
Multimodal
Claude Opus 4.5: 68.5%Qwen3.7 Plus: 85.9%Normalized gap 17.4Claude Opus 4.5 source Qwen3.7 Plus source
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Agentic
Claude Opus 4.5: 59.3%Qwen3.7 Plus: 70.3%Normalized gap 11.0Claude Opus 4.5 source Qwen3.7 Plus source
MMMU-Pro
Multimodal
Claude Opus 4.5: 70.6%Qwen3.7 Plus: 79%Normalized gap 8.4Claude Opus 4.5 source Qwen3.7 Plus source
HMMT Feb 2026
Math
Claude Opus 4.5: 85.3%Qwen3.7 Plus: 92.9%Normalized gap 7.6Claude Opus 4.5 source Qwen3.7 Plus source

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.

Chat turn

1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

Claude Opus 4.5: $0.0175; Fits in one request
Qwen3.7 Plus: API rate not published; Fits in one request

Qwen3.7 Plus has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Claude Opus 4.5: $0.325; Fits in one request
Qwen3.7 Plus: API rate not published; Fits in one request

Qwen3.7 Plus has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

Claude Opus 4.5: $1.35; Does not fit in one request; Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Qwen3.7 Plus: API rate not published; Fits in one request; Cached-input rate unavailable

Claude Opus 4.5 does not fit this workload in one request. Claude Opus 4.5 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Qwen3.7 Plus has no comparable published API token rate.

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

SpecificationClaude Opus 4.5Qwen3.7 Plus

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

Claude Opus 4.5

200K

Qwen3.7 Plus

API model ID

Claude Opus 4.5

Not sourced

Qwen3.7 Plus

Not sourced

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

Claude Opus 4.5

Not published

Qwen3.7 Plus

No comparable hosted API rate

Documented inputs

Claude Opus 4.5

Not sourced

Qwen3.7 Plus

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Claude Opus 4.5

Not sourced

Qwen3.7 Plus

Not sourced

Provider availability

Claude Opus 4.5

Not sourced

Qwen3.7 Plus

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Claude Opus 4.5

Non-Reasoning

Qwen3.7 Plus

Reasoning

Weight access

Claude Opus 4.5

Proprietary

Qwen3.7 Plus

Proprietary

License

Claude Opus 4.5

Proprietary

Qwen3.7 Plus

Proprietary

Release date

Claude Opus 4.5

2025-11-01

Qwen3.7 Plus

2026-06-03

If you already use one of these models

Deployment change: The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
Quality signal: Qwen3.7 Plus has the higher public score estimate, 62.29 versus 60.24, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
Workload cost: A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff: Qwen3.7 Plus has the larger documented window (1M).

Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence71 rows

Agentic

Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Opus 4.559.3%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus70.3%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus leads this result
OSWorld-Verified
Claude Opus 4.566.3%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus73.3%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus leads this result
OSWorld
Claude Opus 4.566.3%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Claude Opus 4.559.6%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus62.7%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus leads this result
QwenClawBench
Claude Opus 4.552.3%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus61.8%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus leads this result
τ³-bench results
Claude Opus 4.570.2%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
VITA-Bench
Claude Opus 4.523.3%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus45.6%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus leads this result
DeepPlanning
Claude Opus 4.526.4%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus62.3%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus leads this result
Toolathlon
Claude Opus 4.543.5%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Claude Opus 4.542.3%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus73.2%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus leads this result
MCP-Tasks
Claude Opus 4.571.8%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
WideResearch
Claude Opus 4.576.4%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
CyberGym
Claude Opus 4.550.6%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
Claude Opus 4.564.23%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
JobBench
Claude Opus 4.532.3%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
BFCL v4
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.7 Plus72.9%
Source
Not directly comparable
AndroidWorld
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.7 Plus81.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.7 Plus2.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.7 Plus52.8%
Source
Not directly comparable

Coding

SWE-bench Verified
Claude Opus 4.580.9%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus77.7%
Source
Claude Opus 4.5 leads this result
LiveCodeBench v6
Claude Opus 4.584.8%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Claude Opus 4.557.1%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus57.6%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus leads this result
SWE Multilingual
Claude Opus 4.577.5%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus75.8%
Source
Claude Opus 4.5 leads this result
NL2Repo
Claude Opus 4.543.2%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus41.1%
Source
Claude Opus 4.5 leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.7 Plus70.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
SciCode
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.7 Plus51.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.7 Plus89.6%
Source
Not directly comparable

Reasoning

LongBench v2
Claude Opus 4.564.4%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
AI-Needle
Claude Opus 4.574%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
CritPt
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.7 Plus9.1%
Source
Not directly comparable
MRCRv2
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.7 Plus91.7%
Source
Not directly comparable

Knowledge

GPQA
Claude Opus 4.587%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus90.3%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus leads this result
SuperGPQA
Claude Opus 4.570.6%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus71.4%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus leads this result
MMLU-Pro
Claude Opus 4.589.5%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus88.5%
Source
Claude Opus 4.5 leads this result
MMLU-Redux
Claude Opus 4.596.6%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus94.5%
Source
Claude Opus 4.5 leads this result
C-Eval
Claude Opus 4.592.2%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
HLE
Claude Opus 4.530.8%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus34.7%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus leads this result
GPQA-D
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.7 Plus90.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
MMMLU
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.7 Plus89.0%
Source
Not directly comparable

Math

AIME26
Claude Opus 4.595.1%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2025
Claude Opus 4.592.9%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
HMMT Nov 2025
Claude Opus 4.593.3%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2026
Claude Opus 4.585.3%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus92.9%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus leads this result
MMAnswerBench
Claude Opus 4.584.0%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Claude Opus 4.520.690%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
Claude Opus 4.54.167%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
IMOAnswerBench
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.7 Plus86.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
Apex
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.7 Plus22.7%
Source
Not directly comparable

Multilingual

MMLU-ProX
Claude Opus 4.585.7%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus85.4%
Source
Claude Opus 4.5 leads this result
NOVA-63
Claude Opus 4.556.7%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus58.8%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus leads this result
INCLUDE
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.7 Plus83.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
MAXIFE
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.7 Plus88.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
PolyMath
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.7 Plus84.0%
Source
Not directly comparable

Multimodal

MMMU-Pro
Claude Opus 4.570.6%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus79%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus leads this result
MathVision
Claude Opus 4.574.3%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus90.3%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus leads this result
CharXiv
Claude Opus 4.568.5%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus85.9%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus leads this result
VideoMMMU
Claude Opus 4.584.4%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus85.4%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus leads this result
ScreenSpot Pro
Claude Opus 4.545.7%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus79.0%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus leads this result
V*
Claude Opus 4.567.0%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
ERQA
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.7 Plus69.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.7 Plus71.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
SimpleVQA
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.7 Plus81.7%
Source
Not directly comparable
MMSearch-Plus
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.7 Plus41.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
RealWorldQA
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.7 Plus86.9%
Source
Not directly comparable
OmniDocBench 1.5
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.7 Plus91.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
OCRBench V2
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.7 Plus70.7%
Source
Not directly comparable
ODINW13
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.7 Plus51.1%
Source
Not directly comparable
Video-MME (with subtitle)
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.7 Plus88.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
MLVU (M-Avg)
Claude Opus 4.5—
Qwen3.7 Plus87.4%
Source
Not directly comparable

Instruction following

IFEval
Claude Opus 4.590.9%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus94.6%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus leads this result
IFBench
Claude Opus 4.558%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus79.1%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus leads this result

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.5 or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus has the higher public score estimate, 62.29 versus 60.24, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.

Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.5 or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Claude Opus 4.5 scores higher for coding on the public lane, 55.1 to 53.1. Qwen3.7 Plus is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for coding from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.5 or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Claude Opus 4.5 scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 44.4 to 37.7. Claude Opus 4.5 is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic tasks, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for agentic tasks from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which costs less, Claude Opus 4.5 or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.

Which has the larger context window, Claude Opus 4.5 or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 200K.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated September 4, 2026

Watch Claude Opus 4.5 vs Qwen3.7 Plus

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.

Claude Opus 4.5 vs Qwen3.7 Plus

Which one for your work

Long documents

Coding work

Agentic work

Chat turn cost

Cache-heavy agent loop cost

Repository review cost

What is actually comparable

Category results, on a stated basis

Multilingual

Multimodal

Instruction following

Agentic

Coding

Knowledge

Reasoning

Math

Shape of the matched evidence

What each workload costs

Chat turn

Repository review

Cache-heavy agent loop

Specification differences

Context window

API model ID

Cached-input rate

Documented inputs

Documented outputs

Provider availability

Reasoning profile

Weight access

License

Release date

Benchmark evidence

Agentic

Coding

Reasoning

Knowledge

Math

Multilingual

Multimodal

Instruction following

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.5 or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.5 or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.5 or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Which costs less, Claude Opus 4.5 or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Which has the larger context window, Claude Opus 4.5 or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Related comparisons

Watch Claude Opus 4.5 vs Qwen3.7 Plus