Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.7 vs Qwen3.6 Plus

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 19 shared benchmark results across 7 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

71.63/100
Margin
6.6pts
← winning
65.05/100
0 category wins1 category wins

Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.7 unranked; Qwen3.6 Plus #14

BenchAlign evidence: Claude Opus 4.7 supported; Qwen3.6 Plus supported. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.7 and Qwen3.6 Plus share 19 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 3 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.7; 42 to Qwen3.6 Plus.

Updated July 15, 2026
Shared results
19
Claude Opus 4.7 only
3
Qwen3.6 Plus only
42
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Pick Claude Opus 4.7 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.6 Plus only becomes the better choice if mathematics is the priority or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 19 shared benchmark results across 7 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 63. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Qwen3.6 Plus 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 scores and score margins for Claude Opus 4.7 and Qwen3.6 Plus
CategoryClaude Opus 4.7ΔQwen3.6 Plus
MathClaude Opus 4.738.6Margin→ 21.9Qwen3.6 Plus60.5
AgenticClaude Opus 4.7Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.6 Plus61.6
CodingClaude Opus 4.7Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.6 Plus70.3
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.7Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.6 Plus62.0
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.7Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.6 Plus57.5
MultilingualClaude Opus 4.7Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.6 Plus84.7
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.7Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.6 Plus79.8
Inst. FollowingClaude Opus 4.7Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.6 Plus82.3

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Claude Opus 4.7B · Qwen3.6 Plus

  1. FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 43.793%B 26.207%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7Δ 17.6
    FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): Claude Opus 4.7 scored 43.793%; Qwen3.6 Plus scored 26.207%. Claude Opus 4.7 wins this benchmark.

  2. FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 22.917%B 8.333%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.7Δ 14.6
    FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): Claude Opus 4.7 scored 22.917%; Qwen3.6 Plus scored 8.333%. Claude Opus 4.7 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3.6 PlusComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.7$5 input / $25 outputQwen3.6 PlusNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.7Not availableQwen3.6 PlusNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.7Not availableQwen3.6 PlusNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.71MQwen3.6 Plus1MListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3.6 PlusResult
τ²-bench resultsSource 74%97.7%Qwen3.6 Plus leads
Gert LabsSource 65.59%50.60%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
ResearchClawBenchSource 20.7%18.0%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
OSWorld 2.0Source 13.9%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —61.6%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 AtlasSource —48.2%Not comparable
MCP-TasksSource —74.1%Not comparable
WideResearchSource —74.3%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource —27.6%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —31.8%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —1135Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3.6 PlusResult
Vibe Code BenchSource 71.00%25.56%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
React Native EvalsSource 82.8%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench HardSource 54.5%43.9%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
AA-SciCodeSource 50.1%40.7%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
FrontierCodeSource 38.5%—Not comparable
SWE-bench VerifiedSource —78.8%Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource —56.6%Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource —73.8%Not comparable
LiveCodeBench v6Source —87.1%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource —54.5%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3.6 PlusResult
AA-LCRSource 67.0%69.7%Qwen3.6 Plus leads
CritPtSource 5.1%2.9%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
AI-NeedleSource —68.3%Not comparable
LongBench v2Source —62%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3.6 PlusResult
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 42.7%39.6%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 88.5%88.2%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
AA-HLESource 31.2%25.7%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 14.2%2.7%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 43.5%26.2%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 51.9%32.0%Qwen3.6 Plus leads
GPQASource —90.4%Not comparable
SuperGPQASource —71.6%Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource —88.5%Not comparable
MMLU-ReduxSource —94.5%Not comparable
C-EvalSource —93.3%Not comparable
HLESource —28.8%Not comparable
MathQwen3.6 Plus wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3.6 PlusResult
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 43.793%26.207%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 22.917%8.333%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
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
Multilingual
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3.6 PlusResult
MMLU-ProXSource —84.7%Not comparable
NOVA-63Source —57.9%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3.6 PlusResult
AA-MMMU-ProSource 76.4%78.0%Qwen3.6 Plus leads
Design Arena WebsiteSource 13281254Claude Opus 4.7 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
CharXivSource —81.5%Not comparable
V*Source —96.9%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3.6 PlusResult
AA-IFBenchSource 43.6%75.2%Qwen3.6 Plus leads
IFEvalSource —94.3%Not comparable
IFBenchSource —75.8%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.7 or Qwen3.6 Plus?

Claude Opus 4.7 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 69 to 63. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), where the scores are 43.793% and 26.207%.

Which is better for math, Claude Opus 4.7 or Qwen3.6 Plus?

Qwen3.6 Plus has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 60.5 versus 38.6. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3) 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 15, 2026

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.