Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.7 vs Qwen3.5 397B
Head-to-head evidence from 15 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.7 unranked; Qwen3.5 397B #20
BenchAlign evidence: Claude Opus 4.7 supported; Qwen3.5 397B estimated. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.7 and Qwen3.5 397B share 15 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 7 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.7; 41 to Qwen3.5 397B.
Updated July 15, 2026- Shared results
- 15
- Claude Opus 4.7 only
- 7
- Qwen3.5 397B only
- 41
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Claude Opus 4.7 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.5 397B only becomes the better choice if mathematics is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 15 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 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 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 69 to 59. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Opus 4.7 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 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 128K for Qwen3.5 397B.
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 | Δ | Qwen3.5 397B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Claude Opus 4.738.6 | Margin→ 52.0 | Qwen3.5 397B90.6 |
| Agentic | Claude Opus 4.7Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B56.5 |
| Coding | Claude Opus 4.7Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B66.5 |
| Reasoning | Claude Opus 4.7Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B63.2 |
| Knowledge | Claude Opus 4.7Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B56.9 |
| Multilingual | Claude Opus 4.7Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B84.7 |
| Multimodal | Claude Opus 4.7Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B79.6 |
| Inst. Following | Claude Opus 4.7Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B92.6 |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen3.5 397B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 4.7$5 input / $25 output | Qwen3.5 397B$0.6 input / $3.6 output | Qwen3.5 397B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 4.7Not available | Qwen3.5 397B96 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 4.7Not available | Qwen3.5 397B2.44 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 4.71M | Qwen3.5 397B128K | Claude Opus 4.7 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic19 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen3.5 397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 74% | 95.6% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 65.59% | 46.76% | Claude Opus 4.7 leads |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 20.7% | 14.2% | Claude Opus 4.7 leads |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | 13.9% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 52.5% | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 62% | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 56.8% | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 51.8% | Not comparable |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | — | 68.4% | Not comparable |
| VITA-BenchSource | — | 43.7% | Not comparable |
| DeepPlanningSource | — | 37.6% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 36.3% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 46.1% | Not comparable |
| MCP-TasksSource | — | 74.2% | Not comparable |
| WideResearchSource | — | 74.0% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 19.9% | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 15.3% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 23.1% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 962 | Not comparable |
Coding9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen3.5 397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 71.00% | — | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | 82.8% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | 54.5% | 40.9% | Claude Opus 4.7 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 50.1% | 42.0% | Claude Opus 4.7 leads |
| FrontierCodeSource | 38.5% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 76.2% | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBench v6Source | — | 83.6% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 50.9% | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 48.2% | Not comparable |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
Knowledge12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen3.5 397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 42.7% | 33.7% | Claude Opus 4.7 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 88.5% | 89.3% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| AA-HLESource | 31.2% | 27.3% | Claude Opus 4.7 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 14.2% | -29.8% | Claude Opus 4.7 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 43.5% | 31.4% | Claude Opus 4.7 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 51.9% | 89.1% | Claude Opus 4.7 leads |
| GPQASource | — | 88.4% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 70.4% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 87.8% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ReduxSource | — | 94.9% | Not comparable |
| C-EvalSource | — | 93% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 28.7% | Not comparable |
MathQwen3.5 397B wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen3.5 397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | 43.793% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | 22.917% | — | Not comparable |
| AIME26Source | — | 93.3% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2025Source | — | 94.8% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Nov 2025Source | — | 92.7% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | — | 87.9% | Not comparable |
| MMAnswerBenchSource | — | 80.9% | Not comparable |
Multilingual2 benchmarks
Multimodal8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen3.5 397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 76.4% | 77.3% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1328 | — | Not comparable |
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 79% | Not comparable |
| MathVisionSource | — | 88.6% | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 80.8% | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | — | 84.7% | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | — | 65.6% | Not comparable |
| V*Source | — | 95.8% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.7 or Qwen3.5 397B?
Claude Opus 4.7 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 69 to 59.
Which is better for math, Claude Opus 4.7 or Qwen3.5 397B?
Qwen3.5 397B has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 90.6 versus 38.6. Claude Opus 4.7 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Related Comparisons
The AI models change fast. We track them for you.
A weekly brief for engineers and researchers covering new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.