Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) vs Qwen3.8-27B
Updated September 28, 2026. Rank says Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.
Both of these models will change. Get the price, version and retirement notices for the pair, each with its source. Follow model changes
Share or export
Decision reading
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the higher public score estimate, 68.53 versus 55.26, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner. 9 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Model A
Anthropic
68.53/100
Estimated · Public rank #18
90% interval 57.0–80.0
- Shared results
- 9
- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) only
- 12
- Qwen3.8-27B only
- 24
- Like-for-like categories
- 1 / 8
Estimated: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) and Qwen3.8-27BHow the comparison works
Which one for your work
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limitedAgentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
No clear pick
The like-for-like agentic result is a practical tie on the public lane (within 0.5 points).
Confidence: limitedChat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-ratesCache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: rate-fallbackRepository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Which one for a specific job
Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.
The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.
56.9Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)48.7Qwen3.8-27B
Directional only · BenchAlign v5.7
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scores higher, but at least one score rests on Estimated evidence or a different benchmark set. Directional only, no winner.
Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.
Same basis rules as the category table below
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
12 Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) only
9 Shared
24 Qwen3.8-27B only
3 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Shape of the matched evidence
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
HLEKnowledge
Normalized gap 23.9Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive):54.7%Qwen3.8-27B:30.8%HLE w/o toolsKnowledge
Normalized gap 16.1Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive):46.9%Qwen3.8-27B:30.8%OSWorld-VerifiedAgentic
Normalized gap 6.3Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive):78%Qwen3.8-27B:84.3%GPQAKnowledge
Normalized gap 5.0Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive):94.2%Qwen3.8-27B:89.2%SWE-bench ProCoding
Normalized gap 2.6Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive):64.3%Qwen3.8-27B:61.7%
Bars run 0–100 on each benchmark’s normalized display scale
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.7 lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.
Agentic
Like-for-like- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
- 61.4
- Supported · #15/111
- Qwen3.8-27B
- 61.2
- Supported · #16/111
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 7 vs 8 public rows
- Reading
- Practical tie
Coding
Directional only- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
- 56.9
- Estimated · #21/136
- Qwen3.8-27B
- 48.7
- Supported · #41/136
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 3 vs 8 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Multimodal
Directional only- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
- 50.1
- #39/50
- Qwen3.8-27B
- 80.9
- #11/50
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 2 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Knowledge
Directional only- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
- 64.1
- Estimated · #28/160
- Qwen3.8-27B
- 49.2
- Supported · #59/160
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 4 vs 6 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
- 53.6
- Unranked · 3 rankable rows
- Qwen3.8-27B
- 78.7
- #8/27
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
- Not ranked
- Qwen3.8-27B
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
- Not ranked
- Qwen3.8-27B
- 83.2
- #45/124
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
- Not ranked
- Qwen3.8-27B
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Qwen3.8-27B | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 61.4Supported · #15/111 | 61.2Supported · #16/111 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.7 lane · 7 vs 8 public rows | Practical tie |
| Coding | 56.9Estimated · #21/136 | 48.7Supported · #41/136 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.7 lane · 3 vs 8 public rows | Directional only |
| Multimodal | 50.1#39/50 | 80.9#11/50 | Directional onlyProvisional lane · 2 vs 1 weighted rows | Directional only |
| Knowledge | 64.1Estimated · #28/160 | 49.2Supported · #59/160 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.7 lane · 4 vs 6 public rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | 53.6Unranked · 3 rankable rows | 78.7#8/27 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not ranked | 83.2#45/124 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.7) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
Supported evidence per lane · bars run 0–100Methodology
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
- $0.0175
- Fits in one request
- Qwen3.8-27B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
Qwen3.8-27B has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
- $0.325
- Fits in one request
- Qwen3.8-27B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
Qwen3.8-27B has no comparable published API token rate.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
- $1.35
- Fits in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
- Qwen3.8-27B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Qwen3.8-27B has no comparable published API token rate.
Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Qwen3.8-27B
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
1M
Qwen3.8-27B
API model ID
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
Not sourced
Qwen3.8-27B
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
Not published
Qwen3.8-27B
No comparable hosted API rate
Qwen3.8-27B model cardDocumented inputs
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
Not sourced
Qwen3.8-27B
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
Not sourced
Qwen3.8-27B
Not sourced
Provider availability
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
Not sourced
Qwen3.8-27B
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
Reasoning
Qwen3.8-27B
Reasoning
Weight access
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
Proprietary
Qwen3.8-27B
Open Weight
License
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
Proprietary
Qwen3.8-27B
Open Weight
Release date
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)
2026-04-16
Qwen3.8-27B
2026-08-05
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
- Quality signal
- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the higher public score estimate, 68.53 versus 55.26, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the larger documented window (1M).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Questions
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Qwen3.8-27B?
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the higher public score estimate, 68.53 versus 55.26, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.
Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Qwen3.8-27B?
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scores higher for coding on the public lane, 56.9 to 48.7. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for coding from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Qwen3.8-27B?
The like-for-like agentic tasks row is a practical tie on the public lane, 61.4 against 61.2, inside the 0.5-point band BenchLM treats as level.
Which costs less, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Qwen3.8-27B?
Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.
Which has the larger context window, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Qwen3.8-27B?
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 262K.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence45 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)69.4%SourceQwen3.8-27B—Not directly comparable
BrowseComp
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)79.3%SourceQwen3.8-27B—Not directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)77.3%SourceQwen3.8-27B—Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)78%SourceQwen3.8-27B84.3%SourceQwen3.8-27B leads this result
CyberGym
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)73.1%SourceQwen3.8-27B—Not directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)18.2%SourceQwen3.8-27B—Not directly comparable
JobBench
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)45.9%SourceQwen3.8-27B33.4%SourceClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—Qwen3.8-27B73.0%SourceNot directly comparable
CoWorkBench
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—Qwen3.8-27B70.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Agents' Last Exam
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—Qwen3.8-27B42.9%SourceNot directly comparable
WebArena-Verified
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—Qwen3.8-27B64.8%SourceNot directly comparable
AndroidWorld
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—Qwen3.8-27B81.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—Qwen3.8-27B58.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)87.6%SourceQwen3.8-27B—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)64.3%SourceQwen3.8-27B61.7%SourceClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)69.4%SourceQwen3.8-27B—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—Qwen3.8-27B73.0%SourceNot directly comparable
NL2Repo
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—Qwen3.8-27B42.3%SourceNot directly comparable
DeepSWE
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—Qwen3.8-27B42.2%SourceNot directly comparable
LiveCodeBench v6
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—Qwen3.8-27B90.3%SourceNot directly comparable
VulcanBench v3
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—Qwen3.8-27B82.6%SourceNot directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—Qwen3.8-27B84.0%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE-bench (Vals)
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—Qwen3.8-27B86.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
Multimodal
OfficeQA Pro
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)43.6%SourceQwen3.8-27B—Not directly comparable
CharXiv
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)91%SourceQwen3.8-27B90.2%SourceClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads this result
CharXiv w/o tools
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)82.1%SourceQwen3.8-27B83.7%SourceQwen3.8-27B leads this result
MathVision
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—Qwen3.8-27B90.0%SourceNot directly comparable
MathVision w/ Python
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—Qwen3.8-27B94.6%SourceNot directly comparable
BabyVision
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—Qwen3.8-27B65.7%SourceNot directly comparable
BabyVision w/ Python
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—Qwen3.8-27B85.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Vision2Web
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—Qwen3.8-27B62.9%SourceNot directly comparable
OmniDocBench 1.5
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—Qwen3.8-27B91.1%SourceNot directly comparable
RealWorldQA
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—Qwen3.8-27B85.9%SourceNot directly comparable
ERQA
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—Qwen3.8-27B65.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
GPQA
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)94.2%SourceQwen3.8-27B89.2%SourceClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads this result
GPQA-D
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)94.2%SourceQwen3.8-27B89.2%SourceClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads this result
HLE
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)54.7%SourceQwen3.8-27B30.8%SourceClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads this result
HLE w/o tools
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)46.9%SourceQwen3.8-27B30.8%SourceClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads this result
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—Qwen3.8-27B88.9%SourceNot directly comparable
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—Qwen3.8-27B84.3%SourceNot directly comparable
Instruction following
IFBench
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)—Qwen3.8-27B79.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
FrontierMath (legacy)
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)43.8%SourceQwen3.8-27B—Not directly comparable
45 public results · 9 shared
Watch Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) vs Qwen3.8-27B
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.
Last updated September 28, 2026