Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.7 vs Qwen3.7 Plus

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 14 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

71.94/100
Margin
4.7pts
← winning
67.22/100
0 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.7 #12 (Supported); 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 and Qwen3.7 Plus share 14 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 7 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.7; 55 to Qwen3.7 Plus.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
14
Claude Opus 4.7 only
7
Qwen3.7 Plus only
55
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Pick Claude Opus 4.7 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.7 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 14 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 BenchAlign aggregate, 71.94 to 67.22. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Qwen3.7 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 Qwen3.7 Plus
CategoryClaude Opus 4.7ΔQwen3.7 Plus
MathClaude Opus 4.738.6Margin→ 54.3Qwen3.7 Plus92.9
AgenticClaude Opus 4.7Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus71.7
CodingClaude Opus 4.7Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus75.6
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.7Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus91.7
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.7Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus60.1
MultilingualClaude Opus 4.7Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus85.4
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.7Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus81.5
Inst. FollowingClaude Opus 4.7Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus84.5

Operational comparison

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

MetricClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3.7 PlusComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.7$5 input / $25 outputQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.7Not availableQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.7Not availableQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.71MQwen3.7 Plus1MListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3.7 PlusResult
τ²-bench resultsSource 74%93%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
Gert LabsSource 65.59%—Not comparable
ResearchClawBenchSource 20.7%—Not comparable
OSWorld 2.0Source 13.9%2.8%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —70.3%Not comparable
QwenClawBenchSource —61.8%Not comparable
QwenWebBenchSource —1536Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource —62.7%Not comparable
BFCL v4Source —72.9%Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource —73.2%Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource —45.6%Not comparable
DeepPlanningSource —62.3%Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource —73.3%Not comparable
AndroidWorldSource —81.0%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource —20.8%Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource —22.4%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —21.8%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —936Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3.7 PlusResult
Vibe Code BenchSource 71.00%—Not comparable
React Native EvalsSource 82.8%—Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 50.1%45.5%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource 38.5%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —70.3%Not comparable
SWE-bench VerifiedSource —77.7%Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource —57.6%Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource —75.8%Not comparable
NL2RepoSource —41.1%Not comparable
SciCodeSource —51.3%Not comparable
LiveCodeBenchSource —89.6%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource —55.9%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3.7 PlusResult
AA-LCRSource 67.0%65.0%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
CritPtSource 5.1%9.1%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
MRCRv2Source —91.7%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3.7 PlusResult
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 42.7%39.0%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 88.5%90.0%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
AA-HLESource 31.2%33.4%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 14.2%2.4%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 43.5%22.2%Claude Opus 4.7 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 51.9%25.5%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
GPQASource —90.3%Not comparable
GPQA-DSource —90.3%Not comparable
HLESource —34.7%Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource —88.5%Not comparable
MMLU-ReduxSource —94.5%Not comparable
SuperGPQASource —71.4%Not comparable
MMMLUSource —89.0%Not comparable
MathQwen3.7 Plus wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3.7 PlusResult
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 43.793%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 22.917%—Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2026Source —92.9%Not comparable
IMOAnswerBenchSource —86.0%Not comparable
ApexSource —22.7%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3.7 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
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3.7 PlusResult
AA-MMMU-ProSource 76.4%80.5%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
Design Arena WebsiteSource 13251288Claude Opus 4.7 leads
MMMU-ProSource —79%Not comparable
MathVisionSource —90.3%Not comparable
CharXivSource —85.9%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 4.7Qwen3.7 PlusResult
AA-IFBenchSource 43.6%78.0%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
IFEvalSource —94.6%Not comparable
IFBenchSource —79.1%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

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

Claude Opus 4.7 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 71.94 to 67.22.

Which is better for math, Claude Opus 4.7 or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 92.9 versus 38.6. Claude Opus 4.7 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.

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.