Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.7 vs Qwen2.5 72B Instruct

Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 31.9 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5 72B Instruct costs 4.1× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 24 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.7 Anthropic

58.3

Rank #19 Confirmed

Qwen2.5 72B Instruct Alibaba (Qwen)

31.9

Rank #267 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 24 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher in 9 categories and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct in 0 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Claude Opus 4.7 leads 66.7 to 19.3.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 97.8% for Claude Opus 4.7 and 8.1% for Qwen2.5 72B Instruct.
  • Qwen2.5 72B Instruct is cheaper at $1.40 / $5.60 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 72B Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.7Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
ProviderAnthropicAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index58.331.9
Released2026-04-142024-09
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M131K
Max output128K8K
Input $ / M tokens$5$1.40
Output $ / M tokens$25$5.60
Results tracked6643

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), Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 33.2 (#260)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
WeirdML76.4%16%
LMArena Coding15181292
SWE-bench Verified83.5%—
FrontierCode38.5%—
LMArena WebDev1558—
SciCode54.5%—
GSO44.1%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—45.8%
MirrorCode31.1%—
BigCodeBench Complete—55.9%
ALE-Bench1,323—

Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 47.9 (#10), Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 22.1 (#133)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
Terminal-Bench80.2%—
APEX-Agents49.2%—
OSWorld 2.018.2%—
TheAgentCompany—5.7%
τ²-bench Banking40.2%—
PostTrainBench28.6%—
BALROG—16.2%
ExploitBench26.5%—
GBAEval43.8%—
GDP.pdf21%—
LMArena Search1233—
METR Time Horizons—35.8%
Vending-Bench 210,937—

Reasoning Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 53.8 (#29), Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 22.3 (#199)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
LMArena Hard Prompts15061271
DTBench94.7%62.9%
LMCA52.2%13.4%
Epoch Capabilities Index156.25129
ForecastBench60.357.5
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%—
BIG-Bench Hard—79.8%
HellaSwag—84.8%
PIQA—82.6%
WinoGrande—82.3%

Math Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 66.7 (#26), Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 19.3 (#287)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202597.8%8.1%
LMArena Math14991283
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)70.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 431.7%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions73.6%—
ProofBench54%—
Omni-MATH—33%
MATH Level 5—63.2%
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), Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 27.0 (#253)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
GPQA Diamond90.2%49.1%
LMArena Expert15211245
Humanity's Last Exam36.2%—
SimpleQA Verified51.7%—
MMLU-Pro—63.1%
Confabulations—19.1%
Vectara Hallucination Rate12%—
GPQA (HELM)—42.6%
ARC (AI2) Challenge—94.5%
MMLU—85.3%
TriviaQA—71.9%

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.7: 41.2 (#38), Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
LMArena Vision1316—
Blueprint-Bench 224.5%—
Furniture Assembly33.3%—
LMArena Document1495—

Multilingual Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 57.3 (#10), Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 41.0 (#213)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
LMArena Non-English14801252
LMArena Chinese15311272
LMArena French15031280
LMArena German14951234
LMArena Japanese14721180
LMArena Korean14641188
LMArena Russian14941264
LMArena Spanish14951256

Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 78.4 (#10), Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 65.5 (#221)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
LMArena Instruction Following14981254
IFEval—80.6%

Long Context Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 46.2 (#25), Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 38.9 (#188)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
LMArena Longer Query15051282

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 75.1 (#8), Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: 46.7 (#215)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
LMArena Text14901269
LMArena Creative Writing14861221
LMArena Multi-Turn15051272
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1914—
WildBench—80.2%
EQ-Bench 41311—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.7 better than Qwen2.5 72B Instruct?

Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 31.9 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5 72B Instruct costs 4.1× 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 Qwen2.5 72B Instruct?

Qwen2.5 72B Instruct is cheaper. It lists at $1.40 per million input tokens and $5.60 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.7 lists at $5 and $25.

Is Claude Opus 4.7 or Qwen2.5 72B Instruct better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 59.6 versus 33.2 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 72B Instruct share?

24 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.7 has 66 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct has 43.

Related comparisons

Go deeper