Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.7 vs Qwen Turbo
Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 27.1 on the Noometry Index. Qwen Turbo costs 114× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher in 2 categories and Qwen Turbo in 0 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Claude Opus 4.7 leads 66.7 to 15.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 97.8% for Claude Opus 4.7 and 6.1% for Qwen Turbo.
- Qwen Turbo is cheaper at $0.05 / $0.20 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.7.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen Turbo | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 58.3 | 27.1 |
| Released | 2026-04-14 | 2024-11-01 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1M | 1M |
| Max output | 128K | 16K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $5 | $0.05 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $25 | $0.20 |
| Results tracked | 66 | 3 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.7: 59.6 (#13), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | 83.5% | — |
| FrontierCode | 38.5% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1558 | — |
| SciCode | 54.5% | — |
| GSO | 44.1% | — |
| WeirdML | 76.4% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1518 | — |
| MirrorCode | 31.1% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 1,323 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.7: 47.9 (#10), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| 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 Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.7: 53.8 (#29), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2 | 75.8% | — |
| SimpleBench | 61.7% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 80.7% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 39% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 93.5% | — |
| CritPt | 12% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 30% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 72.8% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 19% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1506 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 28% | — |
| DTBench | 94.7% | — |
| LMCA | 52.2% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 156.25 | — |
| ForecastBench | 60.3 | — |
Math Claude Opus 4.7 leads
Claude Opus 4.7: 66.7 (#26), Qwen Turbo: 15.3 (#297)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 97.8% | 6.1% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 70.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 31.7% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 73.6% | — |
| ProofBench | 54% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1499 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 56.2% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 43.8% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 22.9% | — |
Knowledge Claude Opus 4.7 leads
Claude Opus 4.7: 62.6 (#23), Qwen Turbo: 22.2 (#272)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 90.2% | 41.8% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 36.2% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 51.7% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1521 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.7: 41.2 (#38), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1316 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 24.5% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 33.3% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1495 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.7: 57.3 (#10), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1480 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1531 | — |
| LMArena French | 1503 | — |
| LMArena German | 1495 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1472 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1464 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1494 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1495 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.7: 78.4 (#10), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1498 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.7: 46.2 (#25), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1505 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.7: 75.1 (#8), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1490 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1486 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1914 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1311 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1505 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4.7 better than Qwen Turbo?
Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 27.1 on the Noometry Index. Qwen Turbo costs 114× 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 Turbo?
Qwen Turbo is cheaper. It lists at $0.05 per million input tokens and $0.20 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.7 lists at $5 and $25.
Which has the bigger context window?
Both accept 1M tokens.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.7 and Qwen Turbo share?
2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.7 has 66 scored results on Noometry and Qwen Turbo has 3.