Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.7 vs Qwen2.5 14B Instruct
Claude Opus 4.7 has enough public results to be ranked (#17); Qwen2.5 14B Instruct does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in coding, where Claude Opus 4.7 leads 59.9 to 37.1.
- Qwen2.5 14B Instruct is cheaper at $0.35 / $1.40 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.7.
- Claude Opus 4.7 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 131K.
- Qwen2.5 14B Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen2.5 14B Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 58.4 | 38.2 |
| Released | 2026-04-14 | 2024-09 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1M | 131K |
| Max output | 128K | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $5 | $0.35 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $25 | $1.40 |
| Results tracked | 66 | 3 |
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), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: 37.1 (#187)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen2.5 14B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | 83.5% | — |
| FrontierCode | 38.5% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1557 | — |
| SciCode | 54.5% | — |
| GSO | 44.1% | — |
| WeirdML | 76.4% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 39.8% |
| LMArena Coding | 1519 | — |
| MirrorCode | 31.1% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 52.2% |
| ALE-Bench | 1,323 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.7: 47.9 (#8), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen2.5 14B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| 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: 53.7 (#24), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen2.5 14B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1507 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 28% | — |
| DTBench | 94.7% | — |
| LMCA | 52.2% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 156.39 | — |
| ForecastBench | 60.3 | — |
Math Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.7: 66.5 (#20), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen2.5 14B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| 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% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1499 | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 43.8% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 22.9% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.7: 62.6 (#20), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen2.5 14B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 90.2% | — |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 36.2% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 51.7% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1521 | — |
| MMLU | — | 79.9% |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.7: 41.5 (#29), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen2.5 14B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1317 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 24.5% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 33.3% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1495 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.7: 57.5 (#9), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen2.5 14B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1481 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1530 | — |
| LMArena French | 1505 | — |
| LMArena German | 1494 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1472 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1466 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1494 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1497 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.7: 78.6 (#9), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen2.5 14B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1498 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.7: 46.1 (#24), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen2.5 14B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1505 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.7: 75.3 (#8), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen2.5 14B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1491 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1486 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1914 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1311 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1506 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4.7 better than Qwen2.5 14B Instruct?
Claude Opus 4.7 has enough public results to be ranked (#17); Qwen2.5 14B Instruct does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.7 or Qwen2.5 14B Instruct?
Qwen2.5 14B Instruct is cheaper. It lists at $0.35 per million input tokens and $1.40 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.7 lists at $5 and $25.
Is Claude Opus 4.7 or Qwen2.5 14B Instruct better for coding?
Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 59.9 versus 37.1 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Claude Opus 4.7 does, with 1M tokens against 131K.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.7 and Qwen2.5 14B Instruct share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.7 has 66 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 14B Instruct has 3.