Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.7 vs Qwen3.5-Flash
Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 42.5 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5-Flash costs 57× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 32 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 32 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen3.5-Flash in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Claude Opus 4.7 leads 66.7 to 37.4.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3): 70.2% for Claude Opus 4.7 and 18.2% for Qwen3.5-Flash.
- Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.7.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen3.5-Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 58.3 | 42.5 |
| Released | 2026-04-14 | 2026-02-23 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1M | 1M |
| Max output | 128K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $5 | $0.10 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $25 | $0.40 |
| Results tracked | 66 | 32 |
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), Qwen3.5-Flash: 34.2 (#242)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1558 | 1244 |
| LMArena Coding | 1518 | 1412 |
| ALE-Bench | 1,323 | 221.8 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 83.5% | — |
| FrontierCode | 38.5% | — |
| SciCode | 54.5% | — |
| GSO | 44.1% | — |
| WeirdML | 76.4% | — |
| MirrorCode | 31.1% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.7: 47.9 (#10), Qwen3.5-Flash: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | 10,937 | 462.69 |
| Terminal-Bench | 80.2% | — |
| APEX-Agents | 49.2% | — |
| OSWorld 2.0 | 18.2% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 40.2% | — |
| PostTrainBench | 28.6% | — |
| ExploitBench | 26.5% | — |
| GBAEval | 43.8% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 21% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1233 | — |
Reasoning Claude Opus 4.7 leads
Claude Opus 4.7: 53.8 (#29), Qwen3.5-Flash: 33.7 (#72)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 30% | 21% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1506 | 1403 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 28% | 20% |
| DTBench | 94.7% | 82.9% |
| LMCA | 52.2% | 29.1% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 156.25 | 143.98 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 75.8% | — |
| SimpleBench | 61.7% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 80.7% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 39% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 93.5% | — |
| CritPt | 12% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 72.8% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 19% | — |
| ForecastBench | 60.3 | — |
Math Claude Opus 4.7 leads
Claude Opus 4.7: 66.7 (#26), Qwen3.5-Flash: 37.4 (#158)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 70.2% | 18.2% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 97.8% | 84.4% |
| LMArena Math | 1499 | 1407 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 43.8% | 6.2% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 22.9% | 0% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 31.7% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 73.6% | — |
| ProofBench | 54% | — |
Knowledge Claude Opus 4.7 leads
Claude Opus 4.7: 62.6 (#23), Qwen3.5-Flash: 43.2 (#93)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 90.2% | 82.3% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 51.7% | 20.3% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12% | 10.5% |
| LMArena Expert | 1521 | 1407 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 36.2% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.7: 41.2 (#38), Qwen3.5-Flash: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1316 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 24.5% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 33.3% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1495 | — |
Multilingual Claude Opus 4.7 leads
Claude Opus 4.7: 57.3 (#10), Qwen3.5-Flash: 50.5 (#121)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1480 | 1385 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1531 | 1446 |
| LMArena French | 1503 | 1412 |
| LMArena German | 1495 | 1390 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1472 | 1368 |
| LMArena Korean | 1464 | 1344 |
| LMArena Russian | 1494 | 1379 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1495 | 1400 |
Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.7 leads
Claude Opus 4.7: 78.4 (#10), Qwen3.5-Flash: 72.6 (#139)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1498 | 1374 |
Long Context Claude Opus 4.7 leads
Claude Opus 4.7: 46.2 (#25), Qwen3.5-Flash: 42.4 (#124)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1505 | 1392 |
Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.7 leads
Claude Opus 4.7: 75.1 (#8), Qwen3.5-Flash: 57.9 (#122)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1490 | 1397 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1486 | 1343 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1505 | 1393 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1914 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1311 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4.7 better than Qwen3.5-Flash?
Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 42.5 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5-Flash costs 57× 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 Qwen3.5-Flash?
Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.7 lists at $5 and $25.
Is Claude Opus 4.7 or Qwen3.5-Flash better for coding?
Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 59.6 versus 34.2 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Both accept 1M tokens.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.7 and Qwen3.5-Flash share?
32 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.7 has 66 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-Flash has 32.