Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.7 vs Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct

Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 29.9 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct costs 2.4× 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.

Claude Opus 4.7 Anthropic

58.3

Rank #19 Confirmed

Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct Alibaba (Qwen)

29.9

Rank #302 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher in 3 categories and Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct in 0 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Opus 4.7 leads 53.8 to 20.7.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is Kagi LLM Benchmark: 80.7% for Claude Opus 4.7 and 36% for Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct.
  • Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct is cheaper at $2.80 / $8.40 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-VL 72B Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.7Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
ProviderAnthropicAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index58.329.9
Released2026-04-142024-09
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M131K
Max output128K8K
Input $ / M tokens$5$2.80
Output $ / M tokens$25$8.40
Results tracked666

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), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
SWE-bench Verified83.5%—
FrontierCode38.5%—
LMArena WebDev1558—
SciCode54.5%—
GSO44.1%—
WeirdML76.4%—
LMArena Coding1518—
MirrorCode31.1%—
ALE-Bench1,323—

Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 47.9 (#10), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: 18.6 (#144)

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

Reasoning Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 53.8 (#29), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: 20.7 (#233)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
Kagi LLM Benchmark80.7%36%
ARC-AGI-275.8%—
SimpleBench61.7%—
NYT Connections (extended)39%—
ARC-AGI-193.5%—
CritPt12%—
Chess Puzzles30%—
Thematic Generalization72.8%—
EBR-Bench19%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1506—
Mystery Game Puzzles28%—
DTBench94.7%—
LMCA52.2%—
Epoch Capabilities Index156.25—
ForecastBench60.3—

Math Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.7: 66.7 (#26), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)70.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 431.7%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions73.6%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202597.8%—
ProofBench54%—
LMArena Math1499—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)43.8%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)22.9%—

Knowledge Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.7: 62.6 (#23), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
GPQA Diamond90.2%—
Humanity's Last Exam36.2%—
SimpleQA Verified51.7%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate12%—
LMArena Expert1521—

Multimodal Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 41.2 (#38), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: 33.5 (#97)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
LMArena Vision13161107
Video-MME—73.5%
GeoBench—62%
Blueprint-Bench 224.5%—
Furniture Assembly33.3%—
LMArena Document1495—
SpatialViz-Bench—33.3%

Multilingual Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.7: 57.3 (#10), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
LMArena Non-English1480—
LMArena Chinese1531—
LMArena French1503—
LMArena German1495—
LMArena Japanese1472—
LMArena Korean1464—
LMArena Russian1494—
LMArena Spanish1495—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.7: 78.4 (#10), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
LMArena Instruction Following1498—

Long Context Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.7: 46.2 (#25), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
LMArena Longer Query1505—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.7: 75.1 (#8), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
LMArena Text1490—
LMArena Creative Writing1486—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1914—
EQ-Bench 41311—
LMArena Multi-Turn1505—

Frequently asked questions

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

Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 29.9 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct costs 2.4× 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-VL 72B Instruct?

Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct is cheaper. It lists at $2.80 per million input tokens and $8.40 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.7 lists at $5 and $25.

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-VL 72B Instruct share?

2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.7 has 66 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct has 6.

Related comparisons

Go deeper