Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.7 vs Qwen3.5 Flash
Head-to-head evidence from 2 shared benchmark results across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
BenchAlign evidence: Claude Opus 4.7 supported; Qwen3.5 Flash supported. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.7 and Qwen3.5 Flash share 2 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 20 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.7; 0 to Qwen3.5 Flash.
Updated July 15, 2026- Shared results
- 2
- Claude Opus 4.7 only
- 20
- Qwen3.5 Flash only
- 0
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Claude Opus 4.7 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.5 Flash only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 2 shared benchmark results across 1 evidence category; 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 47. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Opus 4.7's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 38.6 against 4.7. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), 43.793% to 6.207%.
Claude Opus 4.7 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.10 input / $0.40 output per 1M tokens for Qwen3.5 Flash. That is roughly 62.5x on output cost alone. Qwen3.5 Flash is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude Opus 4.7 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.
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 Flash |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Claude Opus 4.738.6 | Margin← 33.9 | Qwen3.5 Flash4.7 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
MathA 43.793%B 6.207%Winner: Claude Opus 4.7Δ 37.6FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): Claude Opus 4.7 scored 43.793%; Qwen3.5 Flash scored 6.207%. Claude Opus 4.7 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
MathA 22.917%B 0.000%Winner: Claude Opus 4.7Δ 22.9FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): Claude Opus 4.7 scored 22.917%; Qwen3.5 Flash scored 0.000%. Claude Opus 4.7 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 | Qwen3.5 Flash | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 4.7$5 input / $25 output | Qwen3.5 Flash$0.1 input / $0.4 output | Qwen3.5 Flash has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 4.7Not available | Qwen3.5 FlashNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 4.7Not available | Qwen3.5 FlashNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 4.71M | Qwen3.5 Flash1M | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic4 benchmarks
Coding5 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge6 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen3.5 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 42.7% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 88.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | 31.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 14.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 43.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 51.9% | — | Not comparable |
MathClaude Opus 4.7 wins2 benchmarks
Multimodal2 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen3.5 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 43.6% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.7 or Qwen3.5 Flash?
Claude Opus 4.7 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 69 to 47. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), where the scores are 43.793% and 6.207%.
Which is better for math, Claude Opus 4.7 or Qwen3.5 Flash?
Claude Opus 4.7 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 38.6 versus 4.7. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
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.