Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.7 vs Qwen3 Coder Next
Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 34.3 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3 Coder Next costs 34× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 3 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher in 2 categories and Qwen3 Coder Next in 0 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Opus 4.7 leads 53.8 to 22.4.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is WeirdML: 76.4% for Claude Opus 4.7 and 34.4% for Qwen3 Coder Next.
- Qwen3 Coder Next is cheaper at $0.12 / $0.80 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.7.
- Claude Opus 4.7 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 262K.
- Qwen3 Coder Next has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen3 Coder Next | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 58.3 | 34.3 |
| Released | 2026-04-14 | 2026-02-02 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1M | 262K |
| Max output | 128K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $5 | $0.12 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $25 | $0.80 |
| Results tracked | 66 | 3 |
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 Coder Next: 36.3 (#210)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen3 Coder Next |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 54.5% | 32.3% |
| WeirdML | 76.4% | 34.4% |
| SWE-bench Verified | 83.5% | — |
| FrontierCode | 38.5% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1558 | — |
| GSO | 44.1% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1518 | — |
| MirrorCode | 31.1% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 1,323 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.7: 47.9 (#10), Qwen3 Coder Next: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen3 Coder Next |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 10,937 | — |
Reasoning Claude Opus 4.7 leads
Claude Opus 4.7: 53.8 (#29), Qwen3 Coder Next: 22.4 (#196)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen3 Coder Next |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 12% | 0% |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 75.8% | — |
| SimpleBench | 61.7% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 80.7% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 39% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 93.5% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 30% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 72.8% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 19% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1506 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 28% | — |
| DTBench | 94.7% | — |
| LMCA | 52.2% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 156.25 | — |
| ForecastBench | 60.3 | — |
Math Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.7: 66.7 (#26), Qwen3 Coder Next: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen3 Coder Next |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 70.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 31.7% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 73.6% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 97.8% | — |
| ProofBench | 54% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1499 | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 43.8% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 22.9% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.7: 62.6 (#23), Qwen3 Coder Next: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen3 Coder Next |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 90.2% | — |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 36.2% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 51.7% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1521 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.7: 41.2 (#38), Qwen3 Coder Next: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen3 Coder Next |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1316 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 24.5% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 33.3% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1495 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.7: 57.3 (#10), Qwen3 Coder Next: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen3 Coder Next |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1480 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1531 | — |
| LMArena French | 1503 | — |
| LMArena German | 1495 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1472 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1464 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1494 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1495 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.7: 78.4 (#10), Qwen3 Coder Next: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen3 Coder Next |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1498 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.7: 46.2 (#25), Qwen3 Coder Next: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen3 Coder Next |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1505 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.7: 75.1 (#8), Qwen3 Coder Next: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen3 Coder Next |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1490 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1486 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1914 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1311 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1505 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4.7 better than Qwen3 Coder Next?
Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 34.3 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3 Coder Next costs 34× 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 Coder Next?
Qwen3 Coder Next is cheaper. It lists at $0.12 per million input tokens and $0.80 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.7 lists at $5 and $25.
Is Claude Opus 4.7 or Qwen3 Coder Next better for coding?
Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 59.6 versus 36.3 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 Coder Next share?
3 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.7 has 66 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 Coder Next has 3.