Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.7 vs Qwen Max

Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 34.7 on the Noometry Index. Qwen Max costs 3.6× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 20 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.7 Anthropic

58.3

Rank #19 Confirmed

Qwen Max Alibaba (Qwen)

34.7

Rank #230 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 20 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen Max in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Claude Opus 4.7 leads 66.7 to 22.3.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 97.8% for Claude Opus 4.7 and 16.1% for Qwen Max.
  • Qwen Max is cheaper at $1.60 / $6.40 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.7.
  • Claude Opus 4.7 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 33K.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.7Qwen Max
ProviderAnthropicAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index58.334.7
Released2026-04-142024-04-03
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
Context window1M33K
Max output128K8K
Input $ / M tokens$5$1.60
Output $ / M tokens$25$6.40
Results tracked6623

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

Category by category

Coding Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 59.6 (#13), Qwen Max: 30.7 (#292)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen Max
LMArena Coding15181288
SWE-bench Verified83.5%—
FrontierCode38.5%—
Aider Polyglot—21.8%
LMArena WebDev1558—
SciCode54.5%—
GSO44.1%—
WeirdML76.4%—
MirrorCode31.1%—
ALE-Bench1,323—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.7: 47.9 (#10), Qwen Max: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen Max
Terminal-Bench80.2%—
APEX-Agents49.2%—
OSWorld 2.018.2%—
τ²-bench Banking40.2%—
PostTrainBench28.6%—
ExploitBench26.5%—
GBAEval43.8%—
GDP.pdf21%—
LMArena Search1233—
Vending-Bench 210,937—

Reasoning Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 53.8 (#29), Qwen Max: 25.1 (#151)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen Max
LMArena Hard Prompts15061269
ARC-AGI-275.8%—
SimpleBench61.7%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark80.7%—
NYT Connections (extended)39%—
ARC-AGI-193.5%—
CritPt12%—
Chess Puzzles30%—
Thematic Generalization72.8%—
EBR-Bench19%—
Mystery Game Puzzles28%—
DTBench94.7%—
LMCA52.2%—
Epoch Capabilities Index156.25—
ForecastBench60.3—

Math Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 66.7 (#26), Qwen Max: 22.3 (#276)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen Max
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202597.8%16.1%
LMArena Math14991275
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)43.8%1%
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)70.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 431.7%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions73.6%—
ProofBench54%—
MATH Level 5—67.2%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)22.9%—

Knowledge Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 62.6 (#23), Qwen Max: 30.3 (#228)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen Max
GPQA Diamond90.2%56.1%
LMArena Expert15211248
Humanity's Last Exam36.2%—
SimpleQA Verified51.7%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate12%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.7: 41.2 (#38), Qwen Max: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen Max
LMArena Vision1316—
Blueprint-Bench 224.5%—
Furniture Assembly33.3%—
LMArena Document1495—

Multilingual Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 57.3 (#10), Qwen Max: 41.8 (#202)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen Max
LMArena Non-English14801263
LMArena Chinese15311254
LMArena French15031330
LMArena German14951254
LMArena Japanese14721205
LMArena Korean14641142
LMArena Russian14941274
LMArena Spanish14951290

Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 78.4 (#10), Qwen Max: 66.5 (#208)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen Max
LMArena Instruction Following14981262

Long Context Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 46.2 (#25), Qwen Max: 39.4 (#180)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen Max
LMArena Longer Query15051288
Fiction.LiveBench—66.7%

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 75.1 (#8), Qwen Max: 47.8 (#205)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen Max
LMArena Text14901282
LMArena Creative Writing14861248
LMArena Multi-Turn15051277
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1914—
EQ-Bench 41311—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.7 better than Qwen Max?

Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 34.7 on the Noometry Index. Qwen Max costs 3.6× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.7 or Qwen Max?

Qwen Max is cheaper. It lists at $1.60 per million input tokens and $6.40 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.7 lists at $5 and $25.

Is Claude Opus 4.7 or Qwen Max better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 59.6 versus 30.7 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 4.7 does, with 1M tokens against 33K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.7 and Qwen Max share?

20 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.7 has 66 scored results on Noometry and Qwen Max has 23.

Related comparisons

Go deeper