Skip to main content
BenchLM

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.8 vs Qwen3.7 Max

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 33 shared benchmark results across 7 categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.

85/100
Margin
2.0pts
← winning
83/100
2 category wins2 category wins

Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.8 #3; Qwen3.7 Max #4

Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.8 and Qwen3.7 Max share 33 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 20 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.8; 24 to Qwen3.7 Max.

Updated July 12, 2026
Shared results
33
Claude Opus 4.8 only
20
Qwen3.7 Max only
24
Comparable categories
4 / 8

Pick Claude Opus 4.8 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.7 Max only becomes the better choice if mathematics is the priority.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 33 shared benchmark results across 7 evidence categories; 4 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 4.8 has the cleaner provisional overall profile here, landing at 85 versus 83. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.

Claude Opus 4.8's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 80.3 against 69.7. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HLE, 57.9% to 41.4%. Qwen3.7 Max does hit back in mathematics, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

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 4.8 and Qwen3.7 Max
CategoryClaude Opus 4.8ΔQwen3.7 Max
MathClaude Opus 4.853.9Margin→ 43.2Qwen3.7 Max97.1
AgenticClaude Opus 4.880.3Margin← 10.6Qwen3.7 Max69.7
CodingClaude Opus 4.876.4Margin← 2.3Qwen3.7 Max74.1
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.862.7Margin→ 1.8Qwen3.7 Max64.5
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.8Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Max90.4
MultilingualClaude Opus 4.8Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Max87.0
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.877.0MarginNo overlapQwen3.7 MaxNot measured
Inst. FollowingClaude Opus 4.8Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Max84.4

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Claude Opus 4.8B · Qwen3.7 Max

  1. HLE

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 57.9%B 41.4%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 16.5
    HLE: Claude Opus 4.8 scored 57.9%; Qwen3.7 Max scored 41.4%. Claude Opus 4.8 wins this benchmark.

  2. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 69.2%B 60.6%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 8.6
    SWE-bench Pro: Claude Opus 4.8 scored 69.2%; Qwen3.7 Max scored 60.6%. Claude Opus 4.8 wins this benchmark.

  3. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 88.6%B 80.4%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 8.2
    SWE-bench Verified: Claude Opus 4.8 scored 88.6%; Qwen3.7 Max scored 80.4%. Claude Opus 4.8 wins this benchmark.

  4. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 74.6%B 69.7%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 4.9
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Opus 4.8 scored 74.6%; Qwen3.7 Max scored 69.7%. Claude Opus 4.8 wins this benchmark.

  5. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 93.6%B 92.4%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 1.2
    GPQA: Claude Opus 4.8 scored 93.6%; Qwen3.7 Max scored 92.4%. Claude Opus 4.8 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3.7 MaxComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.8$5 input / $25 outputQwen3.7 MaxNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.8Not availableQwen3.7 MaxNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.8Not availableQwen3.7 MaxNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.81MQwen3.7 Max1MListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticClaude Opus 4.8 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3.7 MaxResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 74.6%69.7%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
BrowseCompSource 84.3%—Not comparable
DeepSearchQASource 93.1%—Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 83.4%—Not comparable
Finance Agent v2Source 53.9%—Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 16001275Claude Opus 4.8 leads
MCP AtlasSource 82.2%76.4%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
ToolathlonSource 59.9%—Not comparable
Gert LabsSource 72.97%64.27%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA Agentic IndexSource 47.2%30.6%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Tau2-TelecomSource 94.4%94.7%Qwen3.7 Max leads
GDPval-AASource 55.0%38.7%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
ResearchClawBenchSource 21.1%18.7%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
OSWorld 2.0Source 20.6%—Not comparable
AA BriefcaseSource 1354907Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA AutomationBenchSource 48.5%25.6%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource 44.0%44.5%Qwen3.7 Max leads
AA Harvey LABSource 7.5%—Not comparable
AA Tau3 BankingSource 27.6%—Not comparable
QwenClawBenchSource —64.3%Not comparable
QwenWebBenchSource —1568Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource —65.2%Not comparable
BFCL v4Source —75.0%Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource —47.9%Not comparable
HLE w/ toolsSource —53.5%Not comparable
AA ITBenchSource —42.5%Not comparable
CodingClaude Opus 4.8 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3.7 MaxResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 88.6%80.4%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
SWE-bench ProSource 69.2%60.6%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
SWE MultilingualSource 84.4%78.3%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
SWE MultimodalSource 38.4%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 74.6%69.7%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
cursorBench31Source 58.4%—Not comparable
cursorBench32Source 62.3%—Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 74.3%66.0%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Terminal-Bench HardSource 58.3%50.8%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-SciCodeSource 53.5%48.8%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
FrontierCodeSource 46.5%—Not comparable
AA Terminal-Bench 2.1Source 84.6%74.5%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
NL2RepoSource —47.2%Not comparable
SciCodeSource —53.5%Not comparable
LiveCodeBenchSource —91.6%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3.7 MaxResult
AA-LCRSource 67.7%69.0%Qwen3.7 Max leads
CritPtSource 20.9%13.4%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
MRCRv2Source —90.4%Not comparable
KnowledgeQwen3.7 Max wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3.7 MaxResult
GPQASource 93.6%92.4%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
GPQA-DSource 93.6%92.4%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
HLESource 57.9%41.4%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
HLE w/o toolsSource 49.8%—Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 55.7%46.0%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 92.0%92.3%Qwen3.7 Max leads
AA-HLESource 45.7%38.1%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 27.4%14.1%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 46.6%30.1%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 35.9%22.9%Qwen3.7 Max leads
MMLU-ProSource —89.6%Not comparable
MMLU-ReduxSource —95%Not comparable
SuperGPQASource —73.6%Not comparable
MMMLUSource —90.3%Not comparable
MathQwen3.7 Max wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3.7 MaxResult
USAMO 2026Source 96.7%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 47.241%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 31.250%—Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2026Source —97.1%Not comparable
IMOAnswerBenchSource —90.0%Not comparable
ApexSource —44.5%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3.7 MaxResult
INCLUDESource 87.6%86.2%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
MMLU-ProXSource —87%Not comparable
NOVA-63Source —59.0%Not comparable
MAXIFESource —89.2%Not comparable
PolyMathSource —86.5%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3.7 MaxResult
OfficeQA ProSource 66.2%—Not comparable
ScreenSpot ProSource 87.9%—Not comparable
CharXivSource 89.9%—Not comparable
CharXiv w/o toolsSource 80.5%—Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 12811302Qwen3.7 Max leads
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3.7 MaxResult
AA-IFBenchSource 62.2%80.5%Qwen3.7 Max leads
IFEvalSource —94.3%Not comparable
IFBenchSource —79.1%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (5)

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.8 or Qwen3.7 Max?

Claude Opus 4.8 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 85 to 83. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 57.9% and 41.4%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 4.8 or Qwen3.7 Max?

Qwen3.7 Max has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 64.5 versus 62.7. Inside this category, HLE is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.8 or Qwen3.7 Max?

Claude Opus 4.8 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 76.4 versus 74.1. Inside this category, AA Terminal-Bench 2.1 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for math, Claude Opus 4.8 or Qwen3.7 Max?

Qwen3.7 Max has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 97.1 versus 53.9. Claude Opus 4.8 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.8 or Qwen3.7 Max?

Claude Opus 4.8 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 80.3 versus 69.7. Inside this category, AA Briefcase 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 12, 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.