Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.7 vs Qwen3 235B-A22B

Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 43.5 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3 235B-A22B costs 8.2× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 38 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.7 Anthropic

58.3

Rank #19 Confirmed

Qwen3 235B-A22B Alibaba (Qwen)

43.5

Rank #91 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 38 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher in 9 categories and Qwen3 235B-A22B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Opus 4.7 leads 53.8 to 15.7.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is ARC-AGI-1: 93.5% for Claude Opus 4.7 and 11% for Qwen3 235B-A22B.
  • Qwen3 235B-A22B is cheaper at $0.70 / $2.80 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.7.
  • Claude Opus 4.7 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 131K.
  • Qwen3 235B-A22B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.7Qwen3 235B-A22B
ProviderAnthropicAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index58.343.5
Released2026-04-142025-04
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M131K
Max output128K16K
Input $ / M tokens$5$0.70
Output $ / M tokens$25$2.80
Results tracked6649

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), Qwen3 235B-A22B: 44.3 (#75)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3 235B-A22B
SciCode54.5%42.4%
WeirdML76.4%41%
LMArena Coding15181445
SWE-bench Verified83.5%—
FrontierCode38.5%—
Aider Polyglot—59.6%
LMArena WebDev1558—
GSO44.1%—
MirrorCode31.1%—
ALE-Bench1,323—

Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 47.9 (#10), Qwen3 235B-A22B: 33.9 (#51)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3 235B-A22B
Vending-Bench 210,937-11.34
Terminal-Bench80.2%—
APEX-Agents49.2%—
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—52.1%
OSWorld 2.018.2%—
τ²-bench Banking40.2%—
PostTrainBench28.6%—
ExploitBench26.5%—
GBAEval43.8%—
GDP.pdf21%—
LMArena Search1233—

Reasoning Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 53.8 (#29), Qwen3 235B-A22B: 15.7 (#311)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3 235B-A22B
ARC-AGI-275.8%1.3%
SimpleBench61.7%31%
Kagi LLM Benchmark80.7%69.4%
ARC-AGI-193.5%11%
CritPt12%0%
Chess Puzzles30%12%
LMArena Hard Prompts15061433
Mystery Game Puzzles28%9%
DTBench94.7%80.3%
LMCA52.2%29.3%
Epoch Capabilities Index156.25143.85
ForecastBench60.359.7
NYT Connections (extended)39%—
Thematic Generalization72.8%—
EBR-Bench19%—

Math Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 66.7 (#26), Qwen3 235B-A22B: 50.4 (#57)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3 235B-A22B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202597.8%86.7%
LMArena Math14991432
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)43.8%8.5%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)22.9%0%
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)70.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 431.7%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions73.6%—
ProofBench54%—
Omni-MATH—71.8%
MATH Level 5—68.9%

Knowledge Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 62.6 (#23), Qwen3 235B-A22B: 49.6 (#73)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3 235B-A22B
GPQA Diamond90.2%80.1%
SimpleQA Verified51.7%40.4%
Vectara Hallucination Rate12%9.3%
LMArena Expert15211463
Humanity's Last Exam36.2%—
MMLU-Pro—84.4%
Confabulations—15.6%
GPQA (HELM)—72.7%

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.7: 41.2 (#38), Qwen3 235B-A22B: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3 235B-A22B
LMArena Vision1316—
Blueprint-Bench 224.5%—
Furniture Assembly33.3%—
LMArena Document1495—

Multilingual Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 57.3 (#10), Qwen3 235B-A22B: 52.3 (#89)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3 235B-A22B
LMArena Non-English14801409
LMArena Chinese15311481
LMArena French15031445
LMArena German14951433
LMArena Japanese14721399
LMArena Korean14641391
LMArena Russian14941411
LMArena Spanish14951430

Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 78.4 (#10), Qwen3 235B-A22B: 72.6 (#136)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3 235B-A22B
LMArena Instruction Following14981408
IFEval—83.5%

Long Context Too close to call

Claude Opus 4.7: 46.2 (#25), Qwen3 235B-A22B: 46.1 (#26)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3 235B-A22B
LMArena Longer Query15051426
Fiction.LiveBench—75%

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 75.1 (#8), Qwen3 235B-A22B: 59.6 (#108)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3 235B-A22B
LMArena Text14901419
LMArena Creative Writing14861384
EQ-Bench Creative Writing19141366
LMArena Multi-Turn15051432
Short-Story Creative Writing—83%
WildBench—86.6%
EQ-Bench 41311—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.7 better than Qwen3 235B-A22B?

Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 43.5 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3 235B-A22B costs 8.2× 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 Qwen3 235B-A22B?

Qwen3 235B-A22B is cheaper. It lists at $0.70 per million input tokens and $2.80 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.7 lists at $5 and $25.

Is Claude Opus 4.7 or Qwen3 235B-A22B better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 59.6 versus 44.3 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 Qwen3 235B-A22B share?

38 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.7 has 66 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 235B-A22B has 49.

Related comparisons

Go deeper