Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.7 vs Qwen1.5-110B
Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.4 to 33.6 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen1.5-110B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Claude Opus 4.7 leads 75.3 to 38.1.
- Qwen1.5-110B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen1.5-110B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 58.4 | 33.6 |
| Released | 2026-04-14 | 2024-04-25 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1M | — |
| Max output | 128K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $5 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $25 | — |
| 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: 59.9 (#10), Qwen1.5-110B: 32.4 (#260)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1519 | 1184 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 83.5% | — |
| FrontierCode | 38.5% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1557 | — |
| SciCode | 54.5% | — |
| GSO | 44.1% | — |
| WeirdML | 76.4% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 35% |
| MirrorCode | 31.1% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 44.4% |
| ALE-Bench | 1,323 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.7: 47.9 (#8), Qwen1.5-110B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| 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: 53.7 (#24), Qwen1.5-110B: 21.7 (#192)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1507 | 1168 |
| ForecastBench | 60.3 | 57.7 |
| 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% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 28% | — |
| DTBench | 94.7% | — |
| LMCA | 52.2% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 156.39 | — |
Math Claude Opus 4.7 leads
Claude Opus 4.7: 66.5 (#20), Qwen1.5-110B: 31.1 (#199)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1499 | 1185 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 70.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 31.7% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 73.6% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 97.8% | — |
| ProofBench | 54% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 43.8% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 22.9% | — |
Knowledge Claude Opus 4.7 leads
Claude Opus 4.7: 62.6 (#20), Qwen1.5-110B: 30.7 (#217)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1521 | 1144 |
| GPQA Diamond | 90.2% | — |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 36.2% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 51.7% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.7: 41.5 (#29), Qwen1.5-110B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1317 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 24.5% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 33.3% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1495 | — |
Multilingual Claude Opus 4.7 leads
Claude Opus 4.7: 57.5 (#9), Qwen1.5-110B: 33.8 (#245)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1481 | 1142 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1530 | 1206 |
| LMArena French | 1505 | 1150 |
| LMArena German | 1494 | 1123 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1472 | 1074 |
| LMArena Korean | 1466 | 1044 |
| LMArena Russian | 1494 | 1118 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1497 | 1141 |
Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.7 leads
Claude Opus 4.7: 78.6 (#9), Qwen1.5-110B: 60.6 (#247)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1498 | 1158 |
Long Context Claude Opus 4.7 leads
Claude Opus 4.7: 46.1 (#24), Qwen1.5-110B: 35.0 (#237)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1505 | 1157 |
Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.7 leads
Claude Opus 4.7: 75.3 (#8), Qwen1.5-110B: 38.1 (#250)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1491 | 1175 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1486 | 1148 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1506 | 1160 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1914 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1311 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4.7 better than Qwen1.5-110B?
Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.4 to 33.6 on the Noometry Index.
Is Claude Opus 4.7 or Qwen1.5-110B better for coding?
Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 59.9 versus 32.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.7 and Qwen1.5-110B share?
18 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.7 has 66 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-110B has 20.