Skip to main content
BenchLM
Data

Claude Opus 4.5 vs Qwen3.7 Plus

Updated October 20, 2026. Rank cannot separate these two. Price, access, and your workload decide. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.

Share or export
Share on XLinkedInAPI/MCP

Decision reading

Claude Opus 4.5 has the higher public score estimate, 54.03 versus 53.74, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner. 38 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Model A
Anthropic logo
Claude Opus 4.5

Anthropic

54.03/100

Supported · Public rank #74

90% interval 41.4–66.7

Model B
Alibaba logo
Qwen3.7 Plus

Alibaba

53.74/100

Supported · Public rank #77

90% interval 42.7–64.8

Shared results
38
Claude Opus 4.5 only
23
Qwen3.7 Plus only
15
Like-for-like categories
3 / 8
Supported: Claude Opus 4.5 and Qwen3.7 PlusHow the comparison works

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

    Claude Opus 4.5 and Qwen3.7 Plus are 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

Which one for a specific job

Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.

The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.

40.3Claude Opus 4.540.3Qwen3.7 Plus

Directional only · BenchAlign v5.8

The coding point estimates are equal. Conditional score ranges do not establish rank confidence.

Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.

Open the coding leaderboardShortlist models for this job
Same basis rules as the category table below

What is actually comparable

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

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

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.

Bars run 0–100 on each benchmark’s normalized display scale

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.8 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.

Multimodal

Like-for-like
Claude Opus 4.5
48.6
#50/55
Qwen3.7 Plus
82.0
#16/55
Basis
Provisional lane · 2 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading
Qwen3.7 Plus leads

Multilingual

Like-for-like
Claude Opus 4.5
96.5
#2/17
Qwen3.7 Plus
95.7
#3/17
Basis
Provisional lane · 1 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading
Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Instruction following

Like-for-like
Claude Opus 4.5
31.9
#132/149
Qwen3.7 Plus
92.8
#17/149
Basis
Provisional lane · 1 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading
Qwen3.7 Plus leads

Agentic

Directional only
Claude Opus 4.5
32.5
Estimated · #91/131
Qwen3.7 Plus
35.1
Supported · #83/131
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 15 vs 11 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Coding

Directional only
Claude Opus 4.5
40.3
Estimated · #65/152
Qwen3.7 Plus
40.3
Estimated · #66/152
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 6 vs 7 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Knowledge

Directional only
Claude Opus 4.5
51.1
Estimated · #80/187
Qwen3.7 Plus
53.7
Estimated · #67/187
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 6 vs 7 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Reasoning

Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.5
77.5
Unranked · 4 rankable rows
Qwen3.7 Plus
80.0
Unranked · 3 rankable rows
Basis
Provisional lane · 1 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.5
61.3
#9/12
Qwen3.7 Plus
64.3
Unranked · 4 rankable rows
Basis
Provisional lane · 4 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.8) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

Supported evidence per lane · bars run 0–100Methodology

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.

Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished

Specification differences

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

Context window

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

Claude Opus 4.5

200K

Qwen3.7 Plus

1M

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

2025-11-24

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
Claude Opus 4.5 has the higher public score estimate, 54.03 versus 53.74, 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.

Questions

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

Claude Opus 4.5 has the higher public score estimate, 54.03 versus 53.74, 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 and Qwen3.7 Plus are 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?

Qwen3.7 Plus scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 35.1 to 32.5. 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.

Benchmark evidence

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

Browse raw public benchmark evidence76 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 Plus89.6%
    Source

    Qwen3.7 Plus leads this result

  • 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 4.559.3%
    Source
    Qwen3.7 Plus70.3%
    Source

    Qwen3.7 Plus leads this result

  • SciCode

    Claude Opus 4.5—
    Qwen3.7 Plus51.3%
    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

Multimodal

  • MMMU

    Claude Opus 4.580.7%
    Source
    Qwen3.7 Plus—

    Not directly comparable

  • MMMU-Pro

    Claude Opus 4.570.6%
    Source
    Qwen3.7 Plus79%
    Source

    Qwen3.7 Plus leads this result

  • RealWorldQA

    Claude Opus 4.577.0%
    Source
    Qwen3.7 Plus86.9%
    Source

    Qwen3.7 Plus leads this result

  • OmniDocBench 1.5

    Claude Opus 4.587.7%
    Source
    Qwen3.7 Plus91.4%
    Source

    Qwen3.7 Plus leads this result

  • Video-MME (with subtitle)

    Claude Opus 4.577.6%
    Source
    Qwen3.7 Plus88.0%
    Source

    Qwen3.7 Plus leads this result

  • Video-MME (w/o subtitle)

    Claude Opus 4.581.4%
    Source
    Qwen3.7 Plus—

    Not directly comparable

  • MathVision

    Claude Opus 4.574.3%
    Source
    Qwen3.7 Plus90.3%
    Source

    Qwen3.7 Plus leads this result

  • We-Math

    Claude Opus 4.570.0%
    Source
    Qwen3.7 Plus—

    Not directly comparable

  • DynaMath

    Claude Opus 4.579.7%
    Source
    Qwen3.7 Plus—

    Not directly comparable

  • SimpleVQA

    Claude Opus 4.565.7%
    Source
    Qwen3.7 Plus81.7%
    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

  • CountBench

    Claude Opus 4.590.6%
    Source
    Qwen3.7 Plus—

    Not directly comparable

  • AI2D_TEST

    Claude Opus 4.587.7%
    Source
    Qwen3.7 Plus—

    Not directly comparable

  • ERQA

    Claude Opus 4.546.8%
    Source
    Qwen3.7 Plus69.8%
    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

  • MLVU (M-Avg)

    Claude Opus 4.581.7%
    Source
    Qwen3.7 Plus87.4%
    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

  • MedXpertQA (MM)

    Claude Opus 4.5—
    Qwen3.7 Plus71.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMSearch-Plus

    Claude Opus 4.5—
    Qwen3.7 Plus41.4%
    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

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

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 4.586.2%
    Source
    Qwen3.7 Plus83.0%
    Source

    Claude Opus 4.5 leads this result

  • PolyMath

    Claude Opus 4.579.0%
    Source
    Qwen3.7 Plus84.0%
    Source

    Qwen3.7 Plus leads this result

  • MAXIFE

    Claude Opus 4.579.2%
    Source
    Qwen3.7 Plus88.8%
    Source

    Qwen3.7 Plus leads this result

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

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)

    Shared source
    Claude Opus 4.534.386%
    Qwen3.7 Plus34.386%

    Tie

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Claude Opus 4.54.878%
    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

76 public results · 38 shared

Related comparisons

Compare API pricingRead the methodologyOpen the model selector

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 5,600+ readers.

Last updated October 20, 2026