Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.6 vs Qwen3.7 Plus
Head-to-head evidence from 27 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.6 #16 (Supported); Qwen3.7 Plus #21 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.6 and Qwen3.7 Plus share 27 comparable benchmark results. 5 of 8 categories are comparable. 19 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.6; 42 to Qwen3.7 Plus.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 27
- Claude Opus 4.6 only
- 19
- Qwen3.7 Plus only
- 42
- Comparable categories
- 5 / 8
Pick Claude Opus 4.6 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.7 Plus only becomes the better choice if mathematics is the priority or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 27 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 5 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Claude Opus 4.6 has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 68.59 versus 67.22. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.
Claude Opus 4.6's sharpest advantage is in knowledge, where it averages 69.1 against 60.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SuperGPQA, 95% to 71.4%. Qwen3.7 Plus does hit back in mathematics, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Qwen3.7 Plus is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude Opus 4.6 is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use.
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 | Claude Opus 4.6 | Δ | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Claude Opus 4.636.3 | Margin→ 56.6 | Qwen3.7 Plus92.9 |
| Knowledge | Claude Opus 4.669.1 | Margin← 9.0 | Qwen3.7 Plus60.1 |
| Coding | Claude Opus 4.668.1 | Margin→ 7.5 | Qwen3.7 Plus75.6 |
| Multimodal | Claude Opus 4.677.3 | Margin→ 4.2 | Qwen3.7 Plus81.5 |
| Agentic | Claude Opus 4.673.0 | Margin← 1.3 | Qwen3.7 Plus71.7 |
| Reasoning | Claude Opus 4.6Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Plus91.7 |
| Multilingual | Claude Opus 4.6Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Plus85.4 |
| Inst. Following | Claude Opus 4.6Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Plus84.5 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
SuperGPQA
KnowledgeA 95%B 71.4%Winner: Claude Opus 4.6Δ 23.6SuperGPQA: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 95%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 71.4%. Claude Opus 4.6 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
HLE
KnowledgeA 53%B 34.7%Winner: Claude Opus 4.6Δ 18.3HLE: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 53%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 34.7%. Claude Opus 4.6 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
MMLU-Pro
KnowledgeA 82%B 88.5%Winner: Qwen3.7 PlusΔ 6.5MMLU-Pro: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 82%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 88.5%. Qwen3.7 Plus wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 65.4%B 70.3%Winner: Qwen3.7 PlusΔ 4.9Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 65.4%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 70.3%. Qwen3.7 Plus wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 53.4%B 57.6%Winner: Qwen3.7 PlusΔ 4.2SWE-bench Pro: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 53.4%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 57.6%. Qwen3.7 Plus wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.6 | Qwen3.7 Plus | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 4.6$5 input / $25 output | Qwen3.7 PlusNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 4.640 tok/s | Qwen3.7 PlusNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 4.61.78 s | Qwen3.7 PlusNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 4.61M | Qwen3.7 Plus1M | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticClaude Opus 4.6 wins22 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Qwen3.7 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 65.4% | 70.3% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| BrowseCompSource | 83.7% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 72.7% | 73.3% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 84.8% | 93% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| Claw-EvalSource | 70.4% | 62.7% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| DeepSearchQASource | 73.7% | — | Not comparable |
| CyberGymSource | 66.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 61.85% | — | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 19.9% | — | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | 36.7% | — | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 61.8% | Not comparable |
| QwenWebBenchSource | — | 1536 | 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 |
| 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 | — | 936 | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | — | 2.8% | Not comparable |
CodingQwen3.7 Plus wins15 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Qwen3.7 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 80.8% | 77.7% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| SWE-bench Verified*Source | 75.6% | — | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBench ProSource | 70.7% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 53.4% | 57.6% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| SWE-RebenchSource | 65.3% | — | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | 84.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 57.57% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 45.7% | 45.5% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource | 26.9% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 70.3% | 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 |
Reasoning3 benchmarks
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.6 wins17 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Qwen3.7 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 91.3% | 90.3% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| GPQA-DSource | 89.2% | 90.3% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| SuperGPQASource | 95% | 71.4% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| MMLU-ProSource | 82% | 88.5% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| MMLU-Pro (Arcee)Source | 89.1% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 53% | 34.7% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 40% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench HardSource | 14.8% | — | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (Text)Source | 52.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 37.8% | 39.0% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 84.0% | 90.0% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| AA-HLESource | 18.6% | 33.4% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 3.5% | 2.4% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 45.2% | 22.2% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 76.0% | 25.5% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| MMLU-ReduxSource | — | 94.5% | Not comparable |
| MMMLUSource | — | 89.0% | Not comparable |
MathQwen3.7 Plus wins6 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Qwen3.7 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME25 (Arcee)Source | 99.8% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | 40.700% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | 22.900% | — | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | — | 92.9% | Not comparable |
| IMOAnswerBenchSource | — | 86.0% | Not comparable |
| ApexSource | — | 22.7% | Not comparable |
Multilingual5 benchmarks
MultimodalQwen3.7 Plus wins17 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Qwen3.7 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProSource | 77.3% | 79% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| ERQASource | 51.6% | 69.8% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | 83.1% | 79.0% | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| MedXpertQA (MM)Source | 64.8% | 71.0% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 72.5% | 80.5% | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1325 | 1288 | Claude Opus 4.6 leads |
| MathVisionSource | — | 90.3% | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 85.9% | 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 |
Frequently Asked Questions (6)
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.6 or Qwen3.7 Plus?
Claude Opus 4.6 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 68.59 to 67.22. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SuperGPQA, where the scores are 95% and 71.4%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 4.6 or Qwen3.7 Plus?
Claude Opus 4.6 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 69.1 versus 60.1. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.6 or Qwen3.7 Plus?
Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 75.6 versus 68.1. Inside this category, SWE-bench Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, Claude Opus 4.6 or Qwen3.7 Plus?
Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 92.9 versus 36.3. Claude Opus 4.6 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.6 or Qwen3.7 Plus?
Claude Opus 4.6 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 73 versus 71.7. Inside this category, τ²-bench results is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Opus 4.6 or Qwen3.7 Plus?
Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 81.5 versus 77.3. Inside this category, Design Arena Website is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
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.