Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.8 vs Qwen3.7 Plus

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 30 shared benchmark results across 7 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

78.34/100
Margin
11.1pts
← winning
67.22/100
3 category wins2 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.8 #5 (Supported); Qwen3.7 Plus #21 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.8 and Qwen3.7 Plus share 30 comparable benchmark results. 5 of 8 categories are comparable. 23 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.8; 39 to Qwen3.7 Plus.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
30
Claude Opus 4.8 only
23
Qwen3.7 Plus only
39
Comparable categories
5 / 8

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

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 30 shared benchmark results across 7 evidence categories; 5 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 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 78.34 to 67.22. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Claude Opus 4.8's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 80.3 against 71.7. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HLE, 57.9% to 34.7%. Qwen3.7 Plus 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 Plus
CategoryClaude Opus 4.8ΔQwen3.7 Plus
MathClaude Opus 4.853.9Margin→ 39.0Qwen3.7 Plus92.9
AgenticClaude Opus 4.880.3Margin← 8.6Qwen3.7 Plus71.7
CodingClaude Opus 4.881.1Margin← 5.5Qwen3.7 Plus75.6
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.877.0Margin→ 4.5Qwen3.7 Plus81.5
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.862.7Margin← 2.6Qwen3.7 Plus60.1
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.8Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus91.7
MultilingualClaude Opus 4.8Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus85.4
Inst. FollowingClaude Opus 4.8Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus84.5

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

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

  1. HLE

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 57.9%B 34.7%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 23.2
    HLE: Claude Opus 4.8 scored 57.9%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 34.7%. Claude Opus 4.8 wins this benchmark.

  2. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 69.2%B 57.6%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 11.6
    SWE-bench Pro: Claude Opus 4.8 scored 69.2%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 57.6%. Claude Opus 4.8 wins this benchmark.

  3. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 88.6%B 77.7%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 10.9
    SWE-bench Verified: Claude Opus 4.8 scored 88.6%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 77.7%. Claude Opus 4.8 wins this benchmark.

  4. OSWorld-Verified

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 83.4%B 73.3%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 10.1
    OSWorld-Verified: Claude Opus 4.8 scored 83.4%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 73.3%. Claude Opus 4.8 wins this benchmark.

  5. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 74.6%B 70.3%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 4.3
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Opus 4.8 scored 74.6%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 70.3%. 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 PlusComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.8$5 input / $25 outputQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.8Not availableQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.8Not availableQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.81MQwen3.7 Plus1MListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticClaude Opus 4.8 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3.7 PlusResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 74.6%70.3%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
BrowseCompSource 84.3%—Not comparable
DeepSearchQASource 93.1%—Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 83.4%73.3%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Finance Agent v2Source 53.9%—Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 1594936Claude Opus 4.8 leads
MCP AtlasSource 82.2%73.2%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
ToolathlonSource 59.9%—Not comparable
Gert LabsSource 72.97%—Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource 47.2%20.8%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
τ²-bench resultsSource 94.4%93%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
GDPval-AASource 54.7%21.8%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
ResearchClawBenchSource 21.1%—Not comparable
OSWorld 2.0Source 20.6%2.8%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA BriefcaseSource 1347—Not comparable
AA AutomationBenchSource 48.5%—Not comparable
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource 44.0%—Not comparable
AA Harvey LABSource 91.1%—Not comparable
AA Tau3 BankingSource 27.6%—Not comparable
terminalBenchHardSource 58.3%—Not comparable
aaTerminalBench21Source 84.6%—Not comparable
QwenClawBenchSource —61.8%Not comparable
QwenWebBenchSource —1536Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource —62.7%Not comparable
BFCL v4Source —72.9%Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource —45.6%Not comparable
DeepPlanningSource —62.3%Not comparable
AndroidWorldSource —81.0%Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource —22.4%Not comparable
CodingClaude Opus 4.8 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3.7 PlusResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 88.6%77.7%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
SWE-bench ProSource 69.2%57.6%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
SWE MultilingualSource 84.4%75.8%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
SWE MultimodalSource 38.4%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 74.6%70.3%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
cursorBench31Source 58.4%—Not comparable
cursorBench32Source 62.3%—Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 74.3%55.9%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-SciCodeSource 53.5%45.5%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource 46.5%—Not comparable
NL2RepoSource —41.1%Not comparable
SciCodeSource —51.3%Not comparable
LiveCodeBenchSource —89.6%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3.7 PlusResult
AA-LCRSource 67.7%65.0%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
CritPtSource 20.9%9.1%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
MRCRv2Source —91.7%Not comparable
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.8 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3.7 PlusResult
GPQASource 93.6%90.3%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
GPQA-DSource 93.6%90.3%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
HLESource 57.9%34.7%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
HLE w/o toolsSource 49.8%—Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 55.7%39.0%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 92.0%90.0%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-HLESource 45.7%33.4%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 27.4%2.4%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 46.6%22.2%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 35.9%25.5%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
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 4.8Qwen3.7 PlusResult
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 —92.9%Not comparable
IMOAnswerBenchSource —86.0%Not comparable
ApexSource —22.7%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3.7 PlusResult
INCLUDESource 87.6%83.0%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
MMLU-ProXSource —85.4%Not comparable
NOVA-63Source —58.8%Not comparable
MAXIFESource —88.8%Not comparable
PolyMathSource —84.0%Not comparable
MultimodalQwen3.7 Plus wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3.7 PlusResult
OfficeQA ProSource 66.2%—Not comparable
ScreenSpot ProSource 87.9%79.0%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
CharXivSource 89.9%85.9%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
CharXiv w/o toolsSource 80.5%—Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 12701288Qwen3.7 Plus leads
MMMU-ProSource —79%Not comparable
MathVisionSource —90.3%Not comparable
ERQASource —69.8%Not comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)Source —71.0%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
AA-MMMU-ProSource —80.5%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3.7 PlusResult
AA-IFBenchSource 62.2%78.0%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
IFEvalSource —94.6%Not comparable
IFBenchSource —79.1%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (6)

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

Claude Opus 4.8 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 78.34 to 67.22. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 57.9% and 34.7%.

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

Claude Opus 4.8 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 62.7 versus 60.1. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

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

Claude Opus 4.8 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 81.1 versus 75.6. Inside this category, AA Coding Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

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

Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 92.9 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 Plus?

Claude Opus 4.8 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 80.3 versus 71.7. Inside this category, GDPval-AA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Opus 4.8 or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 81.5 versus 77. Inside this category, Design Arena Website 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 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.