Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) vs Qwen3.6 Plus
Head-to-head evidence from 24 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) #27 (Estimated); Qwen3.6 Plus #30 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) and Qwen3.6 Plus share 24 comparable benchmark results. 5 of 8 categories are comparable. 14 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive); 36 to Qwen3.6 Plus.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 24
- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) only
- 14
- Qwen3.6 Plus only
- 36
- Comparable categories
- 5 / 8
Pick Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.6 Plus only becomes the better choice if multimodal & grounded is the priority.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 24 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 4.7 (Adaptive) has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 66.27 versus 65.2. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)'s sharpest advantage is in reasoning, where it averages 75.8 against 62. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HLE, 54.7% to 28.8%. Qwen3.6 Plus does hit back in multimodal & grounded, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
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 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|---|
| Multimodal | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)65.1 | Margin→ 14.7 | Qwen3.6 Plus79.8 |
| Reasoning | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.8 | Margin← 13.8 | Qwen3.6 Plus62.0 |
| Agentic | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.1 | Margin← 13.5 | Qwen3.6 Plus61.6 |
| Coding | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)78.6 | Margin← 8.3 | Qwen3.6 Plus70.3 |
| Knowledge | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)60.0 | Margin← 2.9 | Qwen3.6 Plus57.1 |
| Math | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6 Plus60.5 |
| Multilingual | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6 Plus84.7 |
| Inst. Following | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6 Plus82.3 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
HLE
KnowledgeA 54.7%B 28.8%Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 25.9HLE: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 54.7%; Qwen3.6 Plus scored 28.8%. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
CharXiv
MultimodalA 91%B 81.5%Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 9.5CharXiv: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 91%; Qwen3.6 Plus scored 81.5%. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 87.6%B 78.8%Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 8.8SWE-bench Verified: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 87.6%; Qwen3.6 Plus scored 78.8%. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 69.4%B 61.6%Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 7.8Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 69.4%; Qwen3.6 Plus scored 61.6%. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 64.3%B 56.6%Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 7.7SWE-bench Pro: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 64.3%; Qwen3.6 Plus scored 56.6%. 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) | Qwen3.6 Plus | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)$5 input / $25 output | Qwen3.6 PlusNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not available | Qwen3.6 PlusNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not available | Qwen3.6 PlusNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)1M | Qwen3.6 Plus1M | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins22 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Qwen3.6 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 69.4% | 61.6% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| BrowseCompSource | 79.3% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 77.3% | 48.2% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 78% | — | Not comparable |
| CyberGymSource | 73.1% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 44.4% | 27.6% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 88.6% | 97.7% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 49.8% | 31.8% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 1495 | 1135 | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | 18.2% | — | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | 45.9% | — | Not comparable |
| AA ITBenchSource | 46.7% | — | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 58.8% | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 57.2% | Not comparable |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | — | 70.7% | Not comparable |
| VITA-BenchSource | — | 44.3% | Not comparable |
| DeepPlanningSource | — | 41.5% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 39.8% | Not comparable |
| MCP-TasksSource | — | 74.1% | Not comparable |
| WideResearchSource | — | 74.3% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 50.60% | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 18.0% | Not comparable |
CodingClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Qwen3.6 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 87.6% | 78.8% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 64.3% | 56.6% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 69.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 73.6% | 54.5% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 54.5% | 40.7% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| SWE MultilingualSource | — | 73.8% | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBench v6Source | — | 87.1% | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | — | 25.56% | Not comparable |
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins6 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Qwen3.6 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MRCR v2 128K-256KSource | 59.2% | — | Not comparable |
| ARC-AGI-2Source | 75.8% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-LCRSource | 70.3% | 69.7% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| CritPtSource | 12.0% | 2.9% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| AI-NeedleSource | — | 68.3% | Not comparable |
| LongBench v2Source | — | 62% | Not comparable |
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins14 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Qwen3.6 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 94.2% | 90.4% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| GPQA-DSource | 94.2% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 54.7% | 28.8% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 46.9% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 53.5% | 39.6% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 91.4% | 88.2% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| AA-HLESource | 39.6% | 25.7% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 26.2% | 2.7% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 45.8% | 26.2% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 36.2% | 32.0% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 71.6% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 88.5% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ReduxSource | — | 94.5% | Not comparable |
| C-EvalSource | — | 93.3% | Not comparable |
Math8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Qwen3.6 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (legacy)Source | 43.8% | — | Not comparable |
| AIME26Source | — | 95.3% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2025Source | — | 96.7% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Nov 2025Source | — | 94.6% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | — | 87.8% | Not comparable |
| MMAnswerBenchSource | — | 83.8% | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | — | 26.207% | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | — | 8.333% | Not comparable |
Multilingual2 benchmarks
MultimodalQwen3.6 Plus wins11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Qwen3.6 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| OfficeQA ProSource | 43.6% | — | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | 91% | 81.5% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| CharXiv w/o toolsSource | 82.1% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 78.8% | 78.0% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1325 | 1249 | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| MMMUSource | — | 86.0% | Not comparable |
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 78.8% | Not comparable |
| MathVisionSource | — | 88.0% | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | — | 84.0% | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | — | 68.2% | Not comparable |
| V*Source | — | 96.9% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (6)
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Qwen3.6 Plus?
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 66.27 to 65.2. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 54.7% and 28.8%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Qwen3.6 Plus?
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 60 versus 57.1. Inside this category, HLE is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Qwen3.6 Plus?
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 78.6 versus 70.3. Inside this category, AA Coding Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for reasoning, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Qwen3.6 Plus?
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the edge for reasoning in this comparison, averaging 75.8 versus 62. Inside this category, CritPt is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Qwen3.6 Plus?
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 75.1 versus 61.6. Inside this category, GDPval-AA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Qwen3.6 Plus?
Qwen3.6 Plus has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 79.8 versus 65.1. 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.