Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.7 vs Qwen Plus
Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 37.1 on the Noometry Index. Qwen Plus costs 17× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 19 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 19 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen Plus 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 23.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 97.8% for Claude Opus 4.7 and 17.8% for Qwen Plus.
- Qwen Plus is cheaper at $0.40 / $1.20 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.7.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen Plus | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 58.3 | 37.1 |
| Released | 2026-04-14 | 2024-01-25 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1M | 1M |
| Max output | 128K | 33K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $5 | $0.40 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $25 | $1.20 |
| Results tracked | 66 | 20 |
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 Plus: 38.9 (#167)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1518 | 1328 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 83.5% | — |
| FrontierCode | 38.5% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1558 | — |
| SciCode | 54.5% | — |
| GSO | 44.1% | — |
| WeirdML | 76.4% | — |
| MirrorCode | 31.1% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 1,323 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.7: 47.9 (#10), Qwen Plus: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 80.2% | — |
| APEX-Agents | 49.2% | — |
| OSWorld 2.0 | 18.2% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 40.2% | — |
| PostTrainBench | 28.6% | — |
| ExploitBench | 26.5% | — |
| GBAEval | 43.8% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 21% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1233 | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 10,937 | — |
Reasoning Claude Opus 4.7 leads
Claude Opus 4.7: 53.8 (#29), Qwen Plus: 28.4 (#107)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 80.7% | 63.3% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1506 | 1317 |
| DTBench | 94.7% | 81.1% |
| LMCA | 52.2% | 24% |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 75.8% | — |
| SimpleBench | 61.7% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 39% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 93.5% | — |
| CritPt | 12% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 30% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 72.8% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 19% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 28% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 156.25 | — |
| ForecastBench | 60.3 | — |
Math Claude Opus 4.7 leads
Claude Opus 4.7: 66.7 (#26), Qwen Plus: 23.3 (#271)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 97.8% | 17.8% |
| LMArena Math | 1499 | 1326 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 43.8% | 1.7% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 70.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 31.7% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 73.6% | — |
| ProofBench | 54% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 65.3% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 22.9% | — |
Knowledge Claude Opus 4.7 leads
Claude Opus 4.7: 62.6 (#23), Qwen Plus: 27.4 (#251)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 90.2% | 48.1% |
| LMArena Expert | 1521 | 1328 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 36.2% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 51.7% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.7: 41.2 (#38), Qwen Plus: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1316 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 24.5% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 33.3% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1495 | — |
Multilingual Claude Opus 4.7 leads
Claude Opus 4.7: 57.3 (#10), Qwen Plus: 45.1 (#175)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1480 | 1310 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1531 | 1347 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1472 | 1251 |
| LMArena Russian | 1494 | 1323 |
| LMArena French | 1503 | — |
| LMArena German | 1495 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1464 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1495 | — |
Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.7 leads
Claude Opus 4.7: 78.4 (#10), Qwen Plus: 68.8 (#181)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1498 | 1303 |
Long Context Claude Opus 4.7 leads
Claude Opus 4.7: 46.2 (#25), Qwen Plus: 40.3 (#158)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1505 | 1324 |
Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.7 leads
Claude Opus 4.7: 75.1 (#8), Qwen Plus: 52.2 (#176)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1490 | 1326 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1486 | 1293 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1505 | 1336 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1914 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1311 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4.7 better than Qwen Plus?
Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 37.1 on the Noometry Index. Qwen Plus costs 17× 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 Plus?
Qwen Plus is cheaper. It lists at $0.40 per million input tokens and $1.20 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.7 lists at $5 and $25.
Is Claude Opus 4.7 or Qwen Plus better for coding?
Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 59.6 versus 38.9 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Both accept 1M tokens.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.7 and Qwen Plus share?
19 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.7 has 66 scored results on Noometry and Qwen Plus has 20.