Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.7 vs Qwen3.8 27B

Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 46.0 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.8 27B costs 17× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 30 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.7 Anthropic

58.3

Rank #19 Confirmed

Qwen3.8 27B Alibaba (Qwen)

46.0

Rank #68 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 30 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher in 9 categories and Qwen3.8 27B in 1 category; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Claude Opus 4.7 leads 66.7 to 37.1.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is ProofBench: 54% for Claude Opus 4.7 and 16% for Qwen3.8 27B.
  • Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper at $0.04 / $2.30 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.7.
  • Claude Opus 4.7 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 262K.
  • Qwen3.8 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.7Qwen3.8 27B
ProviderAnthropicAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index58.346.0
Released2026-04-142026-08-14
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M262K
Max output128K33K
Input $ / M tokens$5$0.04
Output $ / M tokens$25$2.30
Results tracked6631

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), Qwen3.8 27B: 50.5 (#44)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena WebDev15581593
SciCode54.5%46.6%
LMArena Coding15181482
SWE-bench Verified83.5%—
FrontierCode38.5%—
GSO44.1%—
WeirdML76.4%—
MirrorCode31.1%—
ALE-Bench1,323—

Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 47.9 (#10), Qwen3.8 27B: 32.9 (#57)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3.8 27B
APEX-Agents49.2%47.5%
Terminal-Bench80.2%—
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), Qwen3.8 27B: 41.0 (#54)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3.8 27B
ARC-AGI-275.8%42.4%
NYT Connections (extended)39%54.5%
ARC-AGI-193.5%87.5%
CritPt12%5.4%
LMArena Hard Prompts15061460
DTBench94.7%88%
LMCA52.2%41.4%
Epoch Capabilities Index156.25149.38
SimpleBench61.7%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark80.7%—
Chess Puzzles30%—
Thematic Generalization72.8%—
EBR-Bench19%—
Mystery Game Puzzles28%—
Surface Evolver Bench—45%
ForecastBench60.3—

Math Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 66.7 (#26), Qwen3.8 27B: 37.1 (#161)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3.8 27B
ProofBench54%16%
LMArena Math14991456
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)70.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 431.7%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions73.6%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202597.8%—
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), Qwen3.8 27B: 41.6 (#109)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Expert15211482
GPQA Diamond90.2%—
Humanity's Last Exam36.2%—
SimpleQA Verified51.7%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate12%—

Multimodal Too close to call

Claude Opus 4.7: 41.2 (#38), Qwen3.8 27B: 41.3 (#37)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Vision13161271
Blueprint-Bench 224.5%—
Furniture Assembly33.3%—
LMArena Document1495—

Multilingual Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 57.3 (#10), Qwen3.8 27B: 53.7 (#60)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Non-English14801430
LMArena Chinese15311504
LMArena French15031465
LMArena German14951438
LMArena Japanese14721384
LMArena Korean14641393
LMArena Russian14941415
LMArena Spanish14951448

Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 78.4 (#10), Qwen3.8 27B: 75.8 (#53)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Instruction Following14981439

Long Context Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 46.2 (#25), Qwen3.8 27B: 44.3 (#70)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Longer Query15051450

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 75.1 (#8), Qwen3.8 27B: 65.8 (#43)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text14901441
LMArena Creative Writing14861384
EQ-Bench Creative Writing19141671
LMArena Multi-Turn15051441
EQ-Bench 41311—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.7 better than Qwen3.8 27B?

Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 46.0 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.8 27B costs 17× 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 Qwen3.8 27B?

Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper. It lists at $0.04 per million input tokens and $2.30 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.7 lists at $5 and $25.

Is Claude Opus 4.7 or Qwen3.8 27B better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 59.6 versus 50.5 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 Qwen3.8 27B share?

30 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.7 has 66 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.8 27B has 31.

Related comparisons

Go deeper