Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) vs Qwen3.5 397B

Pick Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.5 397B only becomes the better choice if multimodal & grounded is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 90 to 64. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)'s sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 74.9 against 56.2. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HLE, 54.7% to 28.7%. Qwen3.5 397B does hit back in multimodal & grounded, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.60 input / $3.60 output per 1M tokens for Qwen3.5 397B. That is roughly 6.9x on output cost alone. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is the reasoning model in the pair, while Qwen3.5 397B 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 Qwen3.5 397B.