Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.7 vs Qwen3 32B

Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 39.2 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3 32B 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 . 23 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.7 Anthropic

58.3

Rank #19 Confirmed

Qwen3 32B Alibaba (Qwen)

39.2

Rank #172 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 23 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher in 9 categories and Qwen3 32B in 0 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Opus 4.7 leads 53.8 to 20.2.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is LMCA: 52.2% for Claude Opus 4.7 and 17.3% for Qwen3 32B.
  • Qwen3 32B 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 32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.7Qwen3 32B
ProviderAnthropicAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index58.339.2
Released2026-04-142025-04
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M131K
Max output128K16K
Input $ / M tokens$5$0.70
Output $ / M tokens$25$2.80
Results tracked6626

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 32B: 37.7 (#190)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3 32B
SciCode54.5%35.4%
LMArena Coding15181358
SWE-bench Verified83.5%—
FrontierCode38.5%—
Aider Polyglot—40%
LMArena WebDev1558—
GSO44.1%—
WeirdML76.4%—
MirrorCode31.1%—
ALE-Bench1,323—

Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 47.9 (#10), Qwen3 32B: 32.6 (#62)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3 32B
Terminal-Bench80.2%—
APEX-Agents49.2%—
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—48.7%
OSWorld 2.018.2%—
τ²-bench Banking40.2%—
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), Qwen3 32B: 20.2 (#241)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3 32B
Kagi LLM Benchmark80.7%54.9%
CritPt12%0.3%
Chess Puzzles30%5%
LMArena Hard Prompts15061334
DTBench94.7%67.5%
LMCA52.2%17.3%
Epoch Capabilities Index156.25138.51
ARC-AGI-275.8%—
SimpleBench61.7%—
NYT Connections (extended)39%—
ARC-AGI-193.5%—
Thematic Generalization72.8%—
EBR-Bench19%—
Mystery Game Puzzles28%—
ForecastBench60.3—

Math Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 66.7 (#26), Qwen3 32B: 39.7 (#99)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3 32B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202597.8%66.9%
LMArena Math14991399
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)70.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 431.7%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions73.6%—
ProofBench54%—
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), Qwen3 32B: 40.0 (#125)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3 32B
GPQA Diamond90.2%65.7%
Vectara Hallucination Rate12%5.9%
LMArena Expert15211362
Humanity's Last Exam36.2%—
SimpleQA Verified51.7%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.7: 41.2 (#38), Qwen3 32B: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3 32B
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 32B: 45.6 (#167)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3 32B
LMArena Non-English14801317
LMArena Chinese15311357
LMArena German14951341
LMArena Russian14941311
LMArena French1503—
LMArena Japanese1472—
LMArena Korean1464—
LMArena Spanish1495—

Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 78.4 (#10), Qwen3 32B: 68.9 (#179)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3 32B
LMArena Instruction Following14981305

Long Context Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 46.2 (#25), Qwen3 32B: 43.8 (#87)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3 32B
LMArena Longer Query15051327
Fiction.LiveBench—74.2%

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 75.1 (#8), Qwen3 32B: 52.9 (#163)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3 32B
LMArena Text14901340
LMArena Creative Writing14861297
LMArena Multi-Turn15051331
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1914—
EQ-Bench 41311—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.7 better than Qwen3 32B?

Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 39.2 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3 32B 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 32B?

Qwen3 32B 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 32B better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 59.6 versus 37.7 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 32B share?

23 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.7 has 66 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 32B has 26.

Related comparisons

Go deeper