Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.7 vs Qwen2.5 7B Instruct

Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.4 to 28.6 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5 7B Instruct costs 33× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 6 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.7 Anthropic

58.4

Rank #17 Confirmed

Qwen2.5 7B Instruct Alibaba (Qwen)

28.6

Rank #314 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 6 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Claude Opus 4.7 leads 66.5 to 11.8.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 97.8% for Claude Opus 4.7 and 2.5% for Qwen2.5 7B Instruct.
  • Qwen2.5 7B Instruct is cheaper at $0.17 / $0.70 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 7B Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.7Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
ProviderAnthropicAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index58.428.6
Released2026-04-142024-09
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M131K
Max output128K8K
Input $ / M tokens$5$0.17
Output $ / M tokens$25$0.70
Results tracked6615

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 7B Instruct: 35.9 (#204)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
SWE-bench Verified83.5%—
FrontierCode38.5%—
LMArena WebDev1557—
SciCode54.5%—
GSO44.1%—
WeirdML76.4%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—37.6%
LMArena Coding1519—
MirrorCode31.1%—
BigCodeBench Complete—46.1%
ALE-Bench1,323—

Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 47.9 (#8), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 23.5 (#117)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
Terminal-Bench80.2%—
APEX-Agents49.2%—
OSWorld 2.018.2%—
τ²-bench Banking40.2%—
PostTrainBench28.6%—
BALROG—7.8%
ExploitBench26.5%—
GBAEval43.8%—
GDP.pdf21%—
LMArena Search1233—
Vending-Bench 210,937—

Reasoning Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 53.7 (#24), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 14.3 (#317)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
Chess Puzzles30%0%
DTBench94.7%47.7%
LMCA52.2%6.4%
Epoch Capabilities Index156.39118.44
ARC-AGI-275.8%—
SimpleBench61.7%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark80.7%—
NYT Connections (extended)39%—
ARC-AGI-193.5%—
CritPt12%—
Thematic Generalization72.8%—
EBR-Bench19%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1507—
Mystery Game Puzzles28%—
ForecastBench60.3—

Math Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 66.5 (#20), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 11.8 (#300)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202597.8%2.5%
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)70.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 431.7%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions73.6%—
ProofBench54%—
Omni-MATH—29.4%
LMArena Math1499—
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), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 17.0 (#281)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
GPQA Diamond90.2%35.5%
Humanity's Last Exam36.2%—
SimpleQA Verified51.7%—
MMLU-Pro—53.9%
Vectara Hallucination Rate12%—
GPQA (HELM)—34.1%
LMArena Expert1521—
MMLU—72.9%

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.7: 41.5 (#29), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
LMArena Vision1317—
Blueprint-Bench 224.5%—
Furniture Assembly33.3%—
LMArena Document1495—

Multilingual Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.7: 57.5 (#9), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
LMArena Non-English1481—
LMArena Chinese1530—
LMArena French1505—
LMArena German1494—
LMArena Japanese1472—
LMArena Korean1466—
LMArena Russian1494—
LMArena Spanish1497—

Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 78.6 (#9), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 63.4 (#226)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
IFEval—74.1%
LMArena Instruction Following1498—

Long Context Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.7: 46.1 (#24), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
LMArena Longer Query1505—

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 75.3 (#8), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 48.8 (#194)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
LMArena Text1491—
LMArena Creative Writing1486—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1914—
WildBench—73.1%
EQ-Bench 41311—
LMArena Multi-Turn1506—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.7 better than Qwen2.5 7B Instruct?

Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.4 to 28.6 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5 7B Instruct costs 33× 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 7B Instruct?

Qwen2.5 7B Instruct is cheaper. It lists at $0.17 per million input tokens and $0.70 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.7 lists at $5 and $25.

Is Claude Opus 4.7 or Qwen2.5 7B Instruct better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 59.9 versus 35.9 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 7B Instruct share?

6 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.7 has 66 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct has 15.

Related comparisons

Go deeper