Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.6 vs Qwen2.5 7B Instruct

Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 28.6 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5 7B Instruct costs 33× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 6 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.6 Anthropic

58.3

Rank #18 Confirmed

Qwen2.5 7B Instruct Alibaba (Qwen)

28.6

Rank #314 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 6 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Claude Opus 4.6 leads 62.7 to 11.8.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 94.4% for Claude Opus 4.6 and 2.5% for Qwen2.5 7B Instruct.
  • Qwen2.5 7B Instruct is cheaper at $0.17 / $0.70 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.6.
  • Claude Opus 4.6 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 131K.
  • Qwen2.5 7B Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.6Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
ProviderAnthropicAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index58.328.6
Released2026-02-042024-09
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M131K
Max output128K8K
Input $ / M tokens$5$0.17
Output $ / M tokens$25$0.70
Results tracked6815

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 57.7 (#15), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 35.9 (#204)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
SWE-bench Verified78.7%—
FrontierCode26.6%—
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)75.6%—
LMArena WebDev1546—
SWE-bench Multilingual72%—
GSO41.2%—
WeirdML78%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—37.6%
LMArena Coding1535—
BigCodeBench Complete—46.1%
ALE-Bench996.5—
AlgoTune1.47—

Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 51.0 (#4), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 23.5 (#117)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
Terminal-Bench79.8%—
APEX-Agents46.3%—
Remote Labor Index4.2%—
τ²-bench Banking27.3%—
Cybench93%—
DeepResearch Bench55.3%—
BALROG—7.8%
GBAEval44.1%—
LMArena Search1253—
METR Time Horizons78.9%—
Vending-Bench 28,018—

Reasoning Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 57.7 (#21), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 14.3 (#317)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
Chess Puzzles17%0%
DTBench91.2%47.7%
LMCA55.8%6.4%
Epoch Capabilities Index155.36118.44
ARC-AGI-269.2%—
SimpleBench67.6%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark83.6%—
NYT Connections (extended)92.1%—
ARC-AGI-194%—
EnigmaEval7.6%—
Thematic Generalization80.6%—
EBR-Bench12.7%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1527—
Mystery Game Puzzles25%—
ForecastBench60—

Math Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 62.7 (#25), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 11.8 (#300)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202594.4%2.5%
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)66%—
FrontierMath Tier 426.8%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions78.5%—
ProofBench50%—
Omni-MATH—29.4%
LMArena Math1517—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)40.7%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)22.9%—

Knowledge Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 61.8 (#23), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 17.0 (#281)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
GPQA Diamond90.5%35.5%
Humanity's Last Exam34.4%—
SimpleQA Verified47%—
MMLU-Pro—53.9%
Vectara Hallucination Rate12.2%—
GPQA (HELM)—34.1%
LMArena Expert1546—
MMLU—72.9%

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.6: 37.0 (#67), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
LMArena Vision1316—
Furniture Assembly28.3%—
LMArena Document1507—

Multilingual Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.6: 58.2 (#4), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
LMArena Non-English1490—
LMArena Chinese1551—
LMArena French1513—
LMArena German1504—
LMArena Japanese1484—
LMArena Korean1465—
LMArena Russian1497—
LMArena Spanish1512—

Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 79.7 (#3), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 63.4 (#226)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
IFEval—74.1%
LMArena Instruction Following1523—

Long Context Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.6: 48.1 (#13), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
CL-bench20.7%—
CL-bench Life17%—
LMArena Longer Query1520—

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 73.7 (#9), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 48.8 (#194)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
LMArena Text1504—
LMArena Creative Writing1506—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1809—
WildBench—73.1%
EQ-Bench 41223—
LMArena Multi-Turn1514—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.6 better than Qwen2.5 7B Instruct?

Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 28.6 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5 7B Instruct costs 33× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.6 or Qwen2.5 7B Instruct?

Qwen2.5 7B Instruct is cheaper. It lists at $0.17 per million input tokens and $0.70 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.6 lists at $5 and $25.

Is Claude Opus 4.6 or Qwen2.5 7B Instruct better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 57.7 versus 35.9 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 4.6 does, with 1M tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.6 and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct share?

6 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.6 has 68 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct has 15.

Related comparisons

Go deeper