Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) vs Qwen3.7 Plus

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 28 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

66.27/100
Margin
1.0pts
winning →
67.22/100
2 category wins3 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) #27 (Estimated); Qwen3.7 Plus #21 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) and Qwen3.7 Plus share 28 comparable benchmark results. 5 of 8 categories are comparable. 10 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive); 41 to Qwen3.7 Plus.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
28
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) only
10
Qwen3.7 Plus only
41
Comparable categories
5 / 8

Pick Qwen3.7 Plus if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) only becomes the better choice if agentic is the priority.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 28 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

Qwen3.7 Plus has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 67.22 versus 66.27. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.

Qwen3.7 Plus's sharpest advantage is in multimodal & grounded, where it averages 81.5 against 65.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HLE, 54.7% to 34.7%. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) does hit back in agentic, 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 scores and score margins for Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) and Qwen3.7 Plus
CategoryClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)ΔQwen3.7 Plus
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)65.1Margin→ 16.4Qwen3.7 Plus81.5
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.8Margin→ 15.9Qwen3.7 Plus91.7
AgenticClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.1Margin← 3.4Qwen3.7 Plus71.7
CodingClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)78.6Margin← 3.0Qwen3.7 Plus75.6
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)60.0Margin→ 0.1Qwen3.7 Plus60.1
MathClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus92.9
MultilingualClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus85.4
Inst. FollowingClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus84.5

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)B · Qwen3.7 Plus

  1. HLE

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 54.7%B 34.7%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 20
    HLE: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 54.7%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 34.7%. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins this benchmark.

  2. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 87.6%B 77.7%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 9.9
    SWE-bench Verified: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 87.6%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 77.7%. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins this benchmark.

  3. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 64.3%B 57.6%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 6.7
    SWE-bench Pro: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 64.3%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 57.6%. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins this benchmark.

  4. CharXiv

    Multimodal
    Source ↗
    A 91%B 85.9%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 5.1
    CharXiv: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 91%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 85.9%. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins this benchmark.

  5. OSWorld-Verified

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 78%B 73.3%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 4.7
    OSWorld-Verified: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 78%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 73.3%. 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.

MetricClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Qwen3.7 PlusComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)$5 input / $25 outputQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not availableQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not availableQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)1MQwen3.7 Plus1MListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Qwen3.7 PlusResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 69.4%70.3%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
BrowseCompSource 79.3%—Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource 77.3%73.2%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 78%73.3%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
CyberGymSource 73.1%—Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource 44.4%20.8%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
τ²-bench resultsSource 88.6%93%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
GDPval-AASource 49.8%21.8%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
GDPval-AASource 1495936Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
OSWorld 2.0Source 18.2%2.8%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
JobBenchSource 45.9%—Not comparable
AA ITBenchSource 46.7%—Not comparable
QwenClawBenchSource —61.8%Not comparable
QwenWebBenchSource —1536Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource —62.7%Not comparable
BFCL v4Source —72.9%Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource —45.6%Not comparable
DeepPlanningSource —62.3%Not comparable
AndroidWorldSource —81.0%Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource —22.4%Not comparable
CodingClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Qwen3.7 PlusResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 87.6%77.7%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
SWE-bench ProSource 64.3%57.6%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 69.4%70.3%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
AA Coding IndexSource 73.6%55.9%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-SciCodeSource 54.5%45.5%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
SWE MultilingualSource —75.8%Not comparable
NL2RepoSource —41.1%Not comparable
SciCodeSource —51.3%Not comparable
LiveCodeBenchSource —89.6%Not comparable
ReasoningQwen3.7 Plus wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Qwen3.7 PlusResult
MRCR v2 128K-256KSource 59.2%—Not comparable
ARC-AGI-2Source 75.8%—Not comparable
AA-LCRSource 70.3%65.0%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
CritPtSource 12.0%9.1%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
MRCRv2Source —91.7%Not comparable
KnowledgeQwen3.7 Plus wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Qwen3.7 PlusResult
GPQASource 94.2%90.3%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
GPQA-DSource 94.2%90.3%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
HLESource 54.7%34.7%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
HLE w/o toolsSource 46.9%—Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 53.5%39.0%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 91.4%90.0%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-HLESource 39.6%33.4%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 26.2%2.4%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 45.8%22.2%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 36.2%25.5%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
MMLU-ProSource —88.5%Not comparable
MMLU-ReduxSource —94.5%Not comparable
SuperGPQASource —71.4%Not comparable
MMMLUSource —89.0%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Qwen3.7 PlusResult
FrontierMath (legacy)Source 43.8%—Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2026Source —92.9%Not comparable
IMOAnswerBenchSource —86.0%Not comparable
ApexSource —22.7%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Qwen3.7 PlusResult
MMLU-ProXSource —85.4%Not comparable
NOVA-63Source —58.8%Not comparable
INCLUDESource —83.0%Not comparable
MAXIFESource —88.8%Not comparable
PolyMathSource —84.0%Not comparable
MultimodalQwen3.7 Plus wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Qwen3.7 PlusResult
OfficeQA ProSource 43.6%—Not comparable
CharXivSource 91%85.9%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
CharXiv w/o toolsSource 82.1%—Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 78.8%80.5%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
Design Arena WebsiteSource 13251288Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
MMMU-ProSource —79%Not comparable
MathVisionSource —90.3%Not comparable
ERQASource —69.8%Not comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)Source —71.0%Not comparable
ScreenSpot ProSource —79.0%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
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Qwen3.7 PlusResult
AA-IFBenchSource 58.6%78.0%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
IFEvalSource —94.6%Not comparable
IFBenchSource —79.1%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (6)

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 67.22 to 66.27. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 54.7% and 34.7%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 60.1 versus 60. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 78.6 versus 75.6. 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 Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for reasoning in this comparison, averaging 91.7 versus 75.8. Inside this category, AA-LCR is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 75.1 versus 71.7. 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 Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 81.5 versus 65.1. Inside this category, Design Arena Website is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Anthropic Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 23, 2026

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.