Agentic
Like-for-like- Claude Opus 4.6
- 54.6
- Supported · #39/151
- Qwen3.7 Plus
- 37.7
- Supported · #126/151
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 9 vs 11 public rows
- Reading
- Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6 vs Qwen3.7 Plus
Updated September 4, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
Claude Opus 4.6 has the higher public score estimate, 69.84 versus 62.29, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.
14 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
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.
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Claude Opus 4.6
Claude Opus 4.6 leads on the public agentic lane, 54.6 to 37.7, with Supported evidence for both models and non-overlapping 90% intervals.
Confidence: stronger
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
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
No clear pick
The documented context windows are equal.
Confidence: documented
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
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
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 4.6 only
14 Shared
38 Qwen3.7 Plus only
- Shared results
- 14
- Claude Opus 4.6 only
- 19
- Qwen3.7 Plus only
- 38
- Like-for-like categories
- 1 / 8
4 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.
Coding
Directional only- Claude Opus 4.6
- 56.5
- Supported · #40/183
- Qwen3.7 Plus
- 53.1
- Estimated · #51/183
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 8 vs 7 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Knowledge
Directional only- Claude Opus 4.6
- 61.8
- Estimated · #33/181
- Qwen3.7 Plus
- 56.8
- Estimated · #50/181
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 9 vs 7 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Multimodal
Directional only- Claude Opus 4.6
- 59.5
- #28/48
- Qwen3.7 Plus
- 72.5
- #18/48
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 1 vs 2 weighted rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Instruction following
Directional only- Claude Opus 4.6
- 52.3
- #76/120
- Qwen3.7 Plus
- 91.1
- #17/120
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.6
- 65.8
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Qwen3.7 Plus
- 73.7
- Unranked · 3 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.6
- 58.6
- Unranked · 3 rankable rows
- Qwen3.7 Plus
- 78.3
- Unranked · 3 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 2 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.6
- Not ranked
- Qwen3.7 Plus
- 78.9
- #3/12
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude Opus 4.6 | Qwen3.7 Plus | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 54.6Supported · #39/151 | 37.7Supported · #126/151 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign lane · 9 vs 11 public rows | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| Coding | 56.5Supported · #40/183 | 53.1Estimated · #51/183 | Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 8 vs 7 public rows | Directional only |
| Knowledge | 61.8Estimated · #33/181 | 56.8Estimated · #50/181 | Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 9 vs 7 public rows | Directional only |
| Multimodal | 59.5#28/48 | 72.5#18/48 | Directional onlyProvisional lane · 1 vs 2 weighted rows | Directional only |
| Instruction following | 52.3#76/120 | 91.1#17/120 | Directional onlyProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | 65.8Unranked · 2 rankable rows | 73.7Unranked · 3 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 58.6Unranked · 3 rankable rows | 78.3Unranked · 3 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | 78.9#3/12 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 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.
SuperGPQA
Knowledge
Claude Opus 4.6: 95%Qwen3.7 Plus: 71.4%Normalized gap 23.6Claude Opus 4.6 source Qwen3.7 Plus sourceHLE
Knowledge
Claude Opus 4.6: 53%Qwen3.7 Plus: 34.7%Normalized gap 18.3Claude Opus 4.6 source Qwen3.7 Plus sourceMMLU-Pro
Knowledge
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Agentic
Claude Opus 4.6: 65.4%Qwen3.7 Plus: 70.3%Normalized gap 4.9Claude Opus 4.6 source Qwen3.7 Plus sourceSWE-bench Pro
Coding
Claude Opus 4.6: 53.4%Qwen3.7 Plus: 57.6%Normalized gap 4.2Claude Opus 4.6 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 4.6
- $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 4.6
- $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 4.6
- $1.35
- Fits 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 4.6 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 4.6Qwen3.7 Plus
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude Opus 4.6
1M
Qwen3.7 Plus
1M
API model ID
Claude Opus 4.6
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 4.6
Not published
Qwen3.7 Plus
No comparable hosted API rate
Documented inputs
Claude Opus 4.6
Not sourced
Qwen3.7 Plus
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Claude Opus 4.6
Not sourced
Qwen3.7 Plus
Not sourced
Provider availability
Claude Opus 4.6
Not sourced
Qwen3.7 Plus
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Claude Opus 4.6
Non-Reasoning
Qwen3.7 Plus
Reasoning
Weight access
Claude Opus 4.6
Proprietary
Qwen3.7 Plus
Proprietary
License
Claude Opus 4.6
Proprietary
Qwen3.7 Plus
Proprietary
Release date
Claude Opus 4.6
2026-02-01
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
- Claude Opus 4.6 has the higher public score estimate, 69.84 versus 62.29, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- Both models list 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 4.665.4%SourceQwen3.7 Plus70.3%SourceQwen3.7 Plus leads this result
BrowseComp
Claude Opus 4.683.7%SourceQwen3.7 Plus—Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Claude Opus 4.672.7%SourceQwen3.7 Plus73.3%SourceQwen3.7 Plus leads this result
Claw-Eval
Claude Opus 4.670.4%SourceQwen3.7 Plus62.7%SourceClaude Opus 4.6 leads this result
DeepSearchQA
Claude Opus 4.673.7%SourceQwen3.7 Plus—Not directly comparable
CyberGym
Claude Opus 4.666.6%SourceQwen3.7 Plus—Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
Claude Opus 4.661.85%SourceQwen3.7 Plus—Not directly comparable
ResearchClawBench
Claude Opus 4.619.9%SourceQwen3.7 Plus—Not directly comparable
JobBench
Claude Opus 4.636.7%SourceQwen3.7 Plus—Not directly comparable
QwenClawBench
Claude Opus 4.6—Qwen3.7 Plus61.8%SourceNot directly comparable
BFCL v4
Claude Opus 4.6—Qwen3.7 Plus72.9%SourceNot directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Claude Opus 4.6—Qwen3.7 Plus73.2%SourceNot directly comparable
VITA-Bench
Claude Opus 4.6—Qwen3.7 Plus45.6%SourceNot directly comparable
DeepPlanning
Claude Opus 4.6—Qwen3.7 Plus62.3%SourceNot directly comparable
AndroidWorld
Claude Opus 4.6—Qwen3.7 Plus81.0%SourceNot directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
Claude Opus 4.6—Qwen3.7 Plus2.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Claude Opus 4.6—Qwen3.7 Plus52.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Claude Opus 4.680.8%SourceQwen3.7 Plus77.7%SourceClaude Opus 4.6 leads this result
SWE-bench Verified*
Claude Opus 4.675.6%SourceQwen3.7 Plus—Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench Pro
Claude Opus 4.670.7%SourceQwen3.7 Plus—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Claude Opus 4.653.4%SourceQwen3.7 Plus57.6%SourceQwen3.7 Plus leads this result
SWE-Rebench
Claude Opus 4.665.3%SourceQwen3.7 Plus—Not directly comparable
React Native Evals
Claude Opus 4.684.1%SourceQwen3.7 Plus—Not directly comparable
Vibe Code Bench
Claude Opus 4.657.57%SourceQwen3.7 Plus—Not directly comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 Main
Claude Opus 4.626.9%SourceQwen3.7 Plus—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Opus 4.6—Qwen3.7 Plus70.3%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE Multilingual
Claude Opus 4.6—Qwen3.7 Plus75.8%SourceNot directly comparable
NL2Repo
Claude Opus 4.6—Qwen3.7 Plus41.1%SourceNot directly comparable
SciCode
Claude Opus 4.6—Qwen3.7 Plus51.3%SourceNot directly comparable
LiveCodeBench
Claude Opus 4.6—Qwen3.7 Plus89.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
Knowledge
GPQA
Claude Opus 4.691.3%SourceQwen3.7 Plus90.3%SourceClaude Opus 4.6 leads this result
GPQA-D
Claude Opus 4.689.2%SourceQwen3.7 Plus90.3%SourceQwen3.7 Plus leads this result
SuperGPQA
Claude Opus 4.695%SourceQwen3.7 Plus71.4%SourceClaude Opus 4.6 leads this result
MMLU-Pro
Claude Opus 4.682%SourceQwen3.7 Plus88.5%SourceQwen3.7 Plus leads this result
MMLU-Pro (Arcee)
Claude Opus 4.689.1%SourceQwen3.7 Plus—Not directly comparable
HLE
Claude Opus 4.653%SourceQwen3.7 Plus34.7%SourceClaude Opus 4.6 leads this result
HLE w/o tools
Claude Opus 4.640%SourceQwen3.7 Plus—Not directly comparable
HealthBench Hard
Claude Opus 4.614.8%SourceQwen3.7 Plus—Not directly comparable
MedXpertQA (Text)
Claude Opus 4.652.1%SourceQwen3.7 Plus—Not directly comparable
MMLU-Redux
Claude Opus 4.6—Qwen3.7 Plus94.5%SourceNot directly comparable
MMMLU
Claude Opus 4.6—Qwen3.7 Plus89.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
AIME25 (Arcee)
Claude Opus 4.699.8%SourceQwen3.7 Plus—Not directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Claude Opus 4.640.700%SourceQwen3.7 Plus—Not directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
Claude Opus 4.622.900%SourceQwen3.7 Plus—Not directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2026
Claude Opus 4.6—Qwen3.7 Plus92.9%SourceNot directly comparable
IMOAnswerBench
Claude Opus 4.6—Qwen3.7 Plus86.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Apex
Claude Opus 4.6—Qwen3.7 Plus22.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Multilingual
MMLU-ProX
Claude Opus 4.6—Qwen3.7 Plus85.4%SourceNot directly comparable
NOVA-63
Claude Opus 4.6—Qwen3.7 Plus58.8%SourceNot directly comparable
INCLUDE
Claude Opus 4.6—Qwen3.7 Plus83.0%SourceNot directly comparable
MAXIFE
Claude Opus 4.6—Qwen3.7 Plus88.8%SourceNot directly comparable
PolyMath
Claude Opus 4.6—Qwen3.7 Plus84.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Multimodal
MMMU-Pro
Claude Opus 4.677.3%SourceQwen3.7 Plus79%SourceQwen3.7 Plus leads this result
ERQA
Claude Opus 4.651.6%SourceQwen3.7 Plus69.8%SourceQwen3.7 Plus leads this result
ScreenSpot Pro
Claude Opus 4.683.1%SourceQwen3.7 Plus79.0%SourceClaude Opus 4.6 leads this result
MedXpertQA (MM)
Claude Opus 4.664.8%SourceQwen3.7 Plus71.0%SourceQwen3.7 Plus leads this result
MathVision
Claude Opus 4.6—Qwen3.7 Plus90.3%SourceNot directly comparable
CharXiv
Claude Opus 4.6—Qwen3.7 Plus85.9%SourceNot directly comparable
SimpleVQA
Claude Opus 4.6—Qwen3.7 Plus81.7%SourceNot directly comparable
MMSearch-Plus
Claude Opus 4.6—Qwen3.7 Plus41.4%SourceNot directly comparable
RealWorldQA
Claude Opus 4.6—Qwen3.7 Plus86.9%SourceNot directly comparable
OmniDocBench 1.5
Claude Opus 4.6—Qwen3.7 Plus91.4%SourceNot directly comparable
OCRBench V2
Claude Opus 4.6—Qwen3.7 Plus70.7%SourceNot directly comparable
ODINW13
Claude Opus 4.6—Qwen3.7 Plus51.1%SourceNot directly comparable
Video-MME (with subtitle)
Claude Opus 4.6—Qwen3.7 Plus88.0%SourceNot directly comparable
VideoMMMU
Claude Opus 4.6—Qwen3.7 Plus85.4%SourceNot directly comparable
MLVU (M-Avg)
Claude Opus 4.6—Qwen3.7 Plus87.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Instruction following
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.6 or Qwen3.7 Plus?
Claude Opus 4.6 has the higher public score estimate, 69.84 versus 62.29, 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 4.6 or Qwen3.7 Plus?
Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher for coding on the public lane, 56.5 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 4.6 or Qwen3.7 Plus?
Claude Opus 4.6 leads the public agentic tasks lane, 54.6 to 37.7, with Supported evidence for both models and non-overlapping 90% intervals.
Which costs less, Claude Opus 4.6 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 4.6 or Qwen3.7 Plus?
Both models list the same context window, 1M.
Related comparisons
Last updated September 4, 2026
Watch Claude Opus 4.6 vs Qwen3.7 Plus
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.