Claude Opus 5 vs Qwen3.7 Plus

Updated October 20, 2026. Rank says Claude Opus 5 is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.

Decision reading

Claude Opus 5 has the higher public score, 80.11 versus 53.74, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap. 9 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Model A

Claude Opus 5

Anthropic

80.11/100

Supported · Public rank #8

90% interval 77.2–83.0

Model B

Qwen3.7 Plus

Alibaba

53.74/100

Supported · Public rank #77

90% interval 42.7–64.8

Shared results: 9
Claude Opus 5 only: 71
Qwen3.7 Plus only: 44
Like-for-like categories: 1 / 8

Supported: Claude Opus 5 and Qwen3.7 PlusHow the comparison works

Which one for your work

Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.

Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Claude Opus 5
Claude Opus 5 has the higher public agentic point estimate, 78.4 to 35.1, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Confidence: limited

Show secondary and unsupported calls

Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
Qwen3.7 Plus is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
No clear pick
The documented context windows are equal.
Confidence: documented
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates

Which one for a specific job

Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.

Pick the job you would use them for

The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.

70.8Claude Opus 540.3Qwen3.7 Plus

Directional only · BenchAlign v5.8

Claude Opus 5 has the higher coding point estimate. Conditional score ranges do not establish rank confidence.

Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.

Open the coding leaderboard Shortlist models for this job

Same basis rules as the category table below

Shape of the matched evidence

Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.

Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.

OSWorld 2.0Agentic
Normalized gap 67.8
Claude Opus 5:70.6%
Qwen3.7 Plus:2.8%
Claude Opus 5 source Qwen3.7 Plus source
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Math
Normalized gap 51.2
Claude Opus 5:85.614%
Qwen3.7 Plus:34.386%
Shared source
HLEKnowledge
Normalized gap 30.0
Claude Opus 5:64.7%
Qwen3.7 Plus:34.7%
Claude Opus 5 source Qwen3.7 Plus source
SWE-bench ProCoding
Normalized gap 21.6
Claude Opus 5:79.2%
Qwen3.7 Plus:57.6%
Claude Opus 5 source Qwen3.7 Plus source
SWE-bench VerifiedCoding
Normalized gap 18.3
Claude Opus 5:96%
Qwen3.7 Plus:77.7%
Claude Opus 5 source Qwen3.7 Plus source

Bars run 0–100 on each benchmark’s normalized display scale

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.8 lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.

Agentic

Like-for-like

Claude Opus 5: 78.4; Supported · #4/131
Qwen3.7 Plus: 35.1; Supported · #83/131
Basis: BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 21 vs 11 public rows
Reading: Claude Opus 5 leads

Coding

Directional only

Claude Opus 5: 70.8; Supported · #9/152
Qwen3.7 Plus: 40.3; Estimated · #66/152
Basis: BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 18 vs 7 public rows
Reading: Directional only

Multimodal

Directional only

Claude Opus 5: 92.2; #2/55
Qwen3.7 Plus: 82.0; #16/55
Basis: Provisional lane · 1 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading: Directional only

Knowledge

Directional only

Claude Opus 5: 82.3; Supported · #7/187
Qwen3.7 Plus: 53.7; Estimated · #67/187
Basis: BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 19 vs 7 public rows
Reading: Directional only

Reasoning

Not comparable

Claude Opus 5: 81.0; #8/27
Qwen3.7 Plus: 80.0; Unranked · 3 rankable rows
Basis: Provisional lane · 2 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable

Claude Opus 5: Not ranked
Qwen3.7 Plus: 95.7; #3/17
Basis: Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable

Claude Opus 5: Not ranked
Qwen3.7 Plus: 92.8; #17/149
Basis: Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Math

Not comparable

Claude Opus 5: 91.6; Unranked · 7 rankable rows
Qwen3.7 Plus: 64.3; Unranked · 4 rankable rows
Basis: Provisional lane · 2 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Category scores with the server-provided evidence basis for Claude Opus 5 and Qwen3.7 Plus
Category	Claude Opus 5	Qwen3.7 Plus	Basis	Reading
Agentic	78.4Supported · #4/131	35.1Supported · #83/131	Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 21 vs 11 public rows	Claude Opus 5 leads
Coding	70.8Supported · #9/152	40.3Estimated · #66/152	Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 18 vs 7 public rows	Directional only
Multimodal	92.2#2/55	82.0#16/55	Directional onlyProvisional lane · 1 vs 2 weighted rows	Directional only
Knowledge	82.3Supported · #7/187	53.7Estimated · #67/187	Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 19 vs 7 public rows	Directional only
Reasoning	81.0#8/27	80.0Unranked · 3 rankable rows	Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 1 weighted rows	Not comparable
Multilingual	Not ranked	95.7#3/17	Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows	Not comparable
Instruction following	Not ranked	92.8#17/149	Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows	Not comparable
Math	91.6Unranked · 7 rankable rows	64.3Unranked · 4 rankable rows	Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 2 weighted rows	Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.8) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

Supported evidence per lane · bars run 0–100Methodology

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.

Chat turn

1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

Claude Opus 5: $0.0175; Fits in one request
Qwen3.7 Plus: API rate not published; Fits in one request

Qwen3.7 Plus has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Claude Opus 5: $0.325; Fits in one request
Qwen3.7 Plus: API rate not published; Fits in one request

Qwen3.7 Plus has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

Claude Opus 5: $0.45; Fits in one request
Qwen3.7 Plus: API rate not published; Fits in one request; Cached-input rate unavailable

Qwen3.7 Plus has no comparable published API token rate.

Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

SpecificationClaude Opus 5Qwen3.7 Plus

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

Claude Opus 5

Anthropic model overview

Qwen3.7 Plus

API model ID

Claude Opus 5

claude-opus-5

Anthropic model overview

Qwen3.7 Plus

Not sourced

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

Claude Opus 5

$0.5 per 1M cached input tokens

Claude API pricing

Qwen3.7 Plus

No comparable hosted API rate

Documented inputs

Claude Opus 5

text, image

Anthropic model overview

Qwen3.7 Plus

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Claude Opus 5

text

Anthropic model overview

Qwen3.7 Plus

Not sourced

Provider availability

Claude Opus 5

Generally Available · Claude API

Anthropic model overview

Qwen3.7 Plus

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Claude Opus 5

Reasoning

Qwen3.7 Plus

Reasoning

Weight access

Claude Opus 5

Proprietary

Qwen3.7 Plus

Proprietary

License

Claude Opus 5

Proprietary

Qwen3.7 Plus

Proprietary

Release date

Claude Opus 5

2026-07-24

Qwen3.7 Plus

2026-06-03

If you already use one of these models

Deployment change: The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
Quality signal: Claude Opus 5 has the higher public score, 80.11 versus 53.74, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.
Workload cost: A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff: Both models list 1M.

Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Questions

Which is better, Claude Opus 5 or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Claude Opus 5 has the higher public score, 80.11 versus 53.74, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap. That is the clearest overall quality signal in the current public data.

Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 5 or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Claude Opus 5 scores higher for coding on the public lane, 70.8 to 40.3. Qwen3.7 Plus is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for coding from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 5 or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Claude Opus 5 has the higher public agentic tasks point estimate, 78.4 to 35.1, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.

Which costs less, Claude Opus 5 or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.

Which has the larger context window, Claude Opus 5 or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Both models list the same context window, 1M.

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence124 rows

Agentic

Terminal-Bench 3.0
Claude Opus 542.7%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
BrowseComp
Claude Opus 590.8%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
HLE w/ tools
Claude Opus 564.7%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
DeepSearchQA
Claude Opus 595.0%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
DRACO
Claude Opus 588.6%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
BrowseComp (10-agent, prerelease)
Claude Opus 593.6%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
Claude Opus 570.6%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus2.8%
Source
Claude Opus 5 leads this result
MCP Atlas
Claude Opus 585.8%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus73.2%
Source
Claude Opus 5 leads this result
MCP-Atlas claim coverage
Claude Opus 589.1%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
LAB all-pass (Anthropic harness)
Claude Opus 523.58%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
LAB criterion-pass (Anthropic harness)
Claude Opus 593.74%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
LAB all-pass (Harvey held-out)
Claude Opus 511.7%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
LAB criterion-pass (Harvey held-out)
Claude Opus 594.1%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
Toolathlon-Verified
Claude Opus 580.6%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
Toolathlon Verified Pass@3
Claude Opus 587.0%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
Toolathlon Verified Pass³
Claude Opus 573.1%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
Toolathlon Verified avg. turns
Claude Opus 523.5 turns
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
AutomationBench
Claude Opus 526.0%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Claude Opus 584.6%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus52.8%
Source
Claude Opus 5 leads this result
ApprenticeBench
Claude Opus 536%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
MazeBench
Claude Opus 512%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus70.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
QwenClawBench
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus61.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus62.7%
Source
Not directly comparable
BFCL v4
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus72.9%
Source
Not directly comparable
VITA-Bench
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus45.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
DeepPlanning
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus62.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus73.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
AndroidWorld
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus81.0%
Source
Not directly comparable

Coding

Bug Hunt Bench
Claude Opus 527.0 fixes
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Verified
Claude Opus 596%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus77.7%
Source
Claude Opus 5 leads this result
SWE-bench Pro
Claude Opus 579.2%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus57.6%
Source
Claude Opus 5 leads this result
SWE Multilingual
Claude Opus 589.5%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus75.8%
Source
Claude Opus 5 leads this result
SWE Multimodal
Claude Opus 559.4%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
DeepSWE
Claude Opus 568.8%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 Main
Claude Opus 553.4%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 Extended
Claude Opus 563.6%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
FrontierSWE v2
Claude Opus 552.0%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
ProgramBench (episode 1)
Claude Opus 583.0%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
ProgramBench
Claude Opus 593.0%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
CursorBench 3.2
Claude Opus 570.0%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
VulcanBench v3
Claude Opus 587.0%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
VulcanBench CII v1
Claude Opus 596.4%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Claude Opus 589.0%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench (Vals)
Claude Opus 597.0%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
CursorBench 4.0
Claude Opus 546.6%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
PostTrainBench v1.1
Claude Opus 535.0%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus70.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
NL2Repo
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus41.1%
Source
Not directly comparable
SciCode
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus51.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench v6
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus89.6%
Source
Not directly comparable

Reasoning

ARC-AGI-1
Claude Opus 597.50%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
ARC-AGI-2
Claude Opus 590.4%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
ARC-AGI-3
Claude Opus 530.2%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
CritPt
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus9.1%
Source
Not directly comparable
MRCRv2
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus91.7%
Source
Not directly comparable

Multimodal

Chartography (no tools)
Claude Opus 529.6%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
Chartography (tools)
Claude Opus 583.0%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
BenchCAD Vision2Code (no tools)
Claude Opus 50.366
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
BenchCAD Vision2Code (tools)
Claude Opus 50.821
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
GDP.pdf (no tools)
Claude Opus 583.4%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
GDP.pdf (tools)
Claude Opus 585.5%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
OfficeQA
Claude Opus 578.1%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
OfficeQA Pro
Claude Opus 566.9%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
MMMU-Pro
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus79%
Source
Not directly comparable
MathVision
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus90.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
CharXiv
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus85.9%
Source
Not directly comparable
ERQA
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus69.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus71.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
ScreenSpot Pro
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus79.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
SimpleVQA
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus81.7%
Source
Not directly comparable
MMSearch-Plus
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus41.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
RealWorldQA
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus86.9%
Source
Not directly comparable
OmniDocBench 1.5
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus91.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
OCRBench V2
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus70.7%
Source
Not directly comparable
ODINW13
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus51.1%
Source
Not directly comparable
Video-MME (with subtitle)
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus88.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
VideoMMMU
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus85.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
MLVU (M-Avg)
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus87.4%
Source
Not directly comparable

Knowledge

HLE
Claude Opus 564.7%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus34.7%
Source
Claude Opus 5 leads this result
HLE w/o tools
Claude Opus 556.3%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
HLE-Verified
Claude Opus 554.4%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
LABBench2
Claude Opus 584.2%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
HealthBench (raw)
Claude Opus 567.1%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
HealthBench (length-adjusted)
Claude Opus 557.8%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
HealthBench Professional
Claude Opus 559.8%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
HealthBench Professional (raw)
Claude Opus 573.4%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
BioMysteryBench (human-solvable)
Claude Opus 590.1%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
BioMysteryBench (human-difficult)
Claude Opus 549.4%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
SpatialBench Verified
Claude Opus 572.5%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
SingleCellBench
Claude Opus 560.6%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
ProteinGym Hard
Claude Opus 547.7%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
Protein Design
Claude Opus 542.5%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
Organic chemistry V2
Claude Opus 561.6%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
Protocols (troubleshooting)
Claude Opus 561.1%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
Protocols (understanding)
Claude Opus 578.4%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
Claude Opus 593.4%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Claude Opus 591.6%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
GPQA
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus90.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
GPQA-D
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus90.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus88.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
MMLU-Redux
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus94.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
SuperGPQA
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus71.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
MMMLU
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus89.0%
Source
Not directly comparable

Multilingual

GMMLU
Claude Opus 592.5%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
MILU
Claude Opus 592.1%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
INCLUDE
Claude Opus 589.8%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus83.0%
Source
Claude Opus 5 leads this result
MMLU-ProX
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus85.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
NOVA-63
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus58.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
MAXIFE
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus88.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
PolyMath
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus84.0%
Source
Not directly comparable

Instruction following

Gray Swan IPI (15 attempts)
Claude Opus 54.6%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
IFEval
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus94.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
IFBench
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus79.1%
Source
Not directly comparable

Math

IMO 2026
Claude Opus 542/42
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
RiemannBench (no tools)
Claude Opus 560.0%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
RiemannBench (tools)
Claude Opus 579.0%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
ArXivMath Jun. 2026 (no tools)
Claude Opus 590.8%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
ArXivMath Jun. 2026 (tools)
Claude Opus 591.3%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Shared source
Claude Opus 585.614%
Qwen3.7 Plus34.386%
Claude Opus 5 leads this result
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
Claude Opus 573.171%
Source
Qwen3.7 Plus—
Not directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2026
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus92.9%
Source
Not directly comparable
IMOAnswerBench
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus86.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
Apex
Claude Opus 5—
Qwen3.7 Plus22.7%
Source
Not directly comparable

124 public results · 9 shared

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Watch Claude Opus 5 vs Qwen3.7 Plus

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 5,600+ readers.

Last updated October 20, 2026

Claude Opus 5 vs Qwen3.7 Plus

Decision reading

Which one for your work

Agentic work

Coding work

Long documents

Chat turn cost

Cache-heavy agent loop cost

Repository review cost

Which one for a specific job

What is actually comparable

Shape of the matched evidence

Category results, on a stated basis

Agentic

Coding

Multimodal

Knowledge

Reasoning

Multilingual

Instruction following

Math

What each workload costs

Chat turn

Repository review

Cache-heavy agent loop

Specification differences

Context window

API model ID

Cached-input rate

Documented inputs

Documented outputs

Provider availability

Reasoning profile

Weight access

License

Release date

If you already use one of these models

Questions

Which is better, Claude Opus 5 or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 5 or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 5 or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Which costs less, Claude Opus 5 or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Which has the larger context window, Claude Opus 5 or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Benchmark evidence

Agentic

Coding

Reasoning

Multimodal

Knowledge

Multilingual

Instruction following

Math

Related comparisons

Watch Claude Opus 5 vs Qwen3.7 Plus