Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) vs Qwen3 235B 2507
Head-to-head evidence from 1 shared benchmark result across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) #27 (Estimated); Qwen3 235B 2507 #78 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) and Qwen3 235B 2507 share 1 comparable benchmark result. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 37 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive); 3 to Qwen3 235B 2507.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 1
- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) only
- 37
- Qwen3 235B 2507 only
- 3
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3 235B 2507 only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 1 shared benchmark result across 1 evidence category; 1 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 4.7 (Adaptive) is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 66.27 to 56.02. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Qwen3 235B 2507. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is the reasoning model in the pair, while Qwen3 235B 2507 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. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 128K for Qwen3 235B 2507.
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 4.7 (Adaptive) | Δ | Qwen3 235B 2507 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)60.0 | Margin→ 18.9 | Qwen3 235B 250778.9 |
| Agentic | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.1 | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3 235B 2507Not measured |
| Coding | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)78.6 | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3 235B 2507Not measured |
| Reasoning | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.8 | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3 235B 2507Not measured |
| Multilingual | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3 235B 250779.4 |
| Multimodal | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)65.1 | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3 235B 2507Not measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 94.2%B 77.5%Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 16.7GPQA: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 94.2%; Qwen3 235B 2507 scored 77.5%. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Qwen3 235B 2507 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)$5 input / $25 output | Qwen3 235B 2507$0 input / $0 output | Qwen3 235B 2507 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not available | Qwen3 235B 2507Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not available | Qwen3 235B 2507Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)1M | Qwen3 235B 2507128K | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Qwen3 235B 2507 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 69.4% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | 79.3% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 77.3% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 78% | — | Not comparable |
| CyberGymSource | 73.1% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 44.4% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 88.6% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 49.8% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1495 | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | 18.2% | — | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | 45.9% | — | Not comparable |
| AA ITBenchSource | 46.7% | — | Not comparable |
Coding5 benchmarks
Reasoning4 benchmarks
KnowledgeQwen3 235B 2507 wins12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Qwen3 235B 2507 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 94.2% | 77.5% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| GPQA-DSource | 94.2% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 54.7% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 46.9% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 53.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 91.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | 39.6% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 26.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 45.8% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 36.2% | — | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 62.6% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 83% | Not comparable |
Math1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Qwen3 235B 2507 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (legacy)Source | 43.8% | — | Not comparable |
Multilingual1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Qwen3 235B 2507 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-ProXSource | — | 79.4% | Not comparable |
Multimodal5 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Qwen3 235B 2507 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 58.6% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Qwen3 235B 2507?
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 66.27 to 56.02. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 94.2% and 77.5%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Qwen3 235B 2507?
Qwen3 235B 2507 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 78.9 versus 60. Inside this category, GPQA 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.