Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.7 vs Qwen3.6 Max Preview

Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.4 to 51.1 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.6 Max Preview costs 3.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 29 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.7 Anthropic

58.4

Rank #17 Confirmed

Qwen3.6 Max Preview Alibaba (Qwen)

51.1

Rank #36 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 29 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen3.6 Max Preview in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Claude Opus 4.7 leads 66.5 to 52.2.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 39% for Claude Opus 4.7 and 74.1% for Qwen3.6 Max Preview.
  • Qwen3.6 Max Preview is cheaper at $1.30 / $7.80 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.7.
  • Claude Opus 4.7 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 262K.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.7Qwen3.6 Max Preview
ProviderAnthropicAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index58.451.1
Released2026-04-142026-04-20
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
Context window1M262K
Max output128K66K
Input $ / M tokens$5$1.30
Output $ / M tokens$25$7.80
Results tracked6629

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), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 48.6 (#50)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3.6 Max Preview
SWE-bench Verified83.5%76.7%
LMArena WebDev15571482
LMArena Coding15191472
FrontierCode38.5%—
SciCode54.5%—
GSO44.1%—
WeirdML76.4%—
MirrorCode31.1%—
ALE-Bench1,323—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.7: 47.9 (#8), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3.6 Max Preview
Vending-Bench 210,9374,254
Terminal-Bench80.2%—
APEX-Agents49.2%—
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: 53.7 (#24), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 40.8 (#47)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3.6 Max Preview
SimpleBench61.7%63%
NYT Connections (extended)39%74.1%
Chess Puzzles30%20%
LMArena Hard Prompts15071457
Mystery Game Puzzles28%19%
DTBench94.7%87.2%
LMCA52.2%42.5%
Epoch Capabilities Index156.39149.27
ARC-AGI-275.8%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark80.7%—
ARC-AGI-193.5%—
CritPt12%—
Thematic Generalization72.8%—
EBR-Bench19%—
ForecastBench60.3—

Math Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 66.5 (#20), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 52.2 (#40)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3.6 Max Preview
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202597.8%91.1%
LMArena Math14991465
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)43.8%23.1%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)22.9%4.2%
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)70.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 431.7%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions73.6%—
ProofBench54%—

Knowledge Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 62.6 (#20), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 57.6 (#35)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3.6 Max Preview
GPQA Diamond90.2%87.4%
SimpleQA Verified51.7%52%
LMArena Expert15211476
Humanity's Last Exam36.2%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate12%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.7: 41.5 (#29), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3.6 Max Preview
LMArena Vision1317—
Blueprint-Bench 224.5%—
Furniture Assembly33.3%—
LMArena Document1495—

Multilingual Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 57.5 (#9), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 54.3 (#46)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3.6 Max Preview
LMArena Non-English14811436
LMArena Chinese15301487
LMArena French15051449
LMArena Russian14941444
LMArena Spanish14971452
LMArena German1494—
LMArena Japanese1472—
LMArena Korean1466—

Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 78.6 (#9), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 75.8 (#51)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3.6 Max Preview
LMArena Instruction Following14981437

Long Context Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 46.1 (#24), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 44.6 (#59)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3.6 Max Preview
LMArena Longer Query15051457

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 75.3 (#8), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 64.0 (#58)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3.6 Max Preview
LMArena Text14911447
LMArena Creative Writing14861435
LMArena Multi-Turn15061456
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1914—
EQ-Bench 41311—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.7 better than Qwen3.6 Max Preview?

Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.4 to 51.1 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.6 Max Preview costs 3.4× 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 Qwen3.6 Max Preview?

Qwen3.6 Max Preview is cheaper. It lists at $1.30 per million input tokens and $7.80 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.7 lists at $5 and $25.

Is Claude Opus 4.7 or Qwen3.6 Max Preview better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 59.9 versus 48.6 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 4.7 does, with 1M tokens against 262K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.7 and Qwen3.6 Max Preview share?

29 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.7 has 66 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Max Preview has 29.

Related comparisons

Go deeper