Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.8 vs Qwen2.5 7B Instruct

Claude Opus 4.8 is the stronger model overall, scoring 60.7 to 29.0 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5 7B Instruct costs 33× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.8's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 6 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.8 Anthropic

60.7

Rank #13 Confirmed

Qwen2.5 7B Instruct Alibaba (Qwen)

29.0

Rank #320 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 6 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.8 scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Claude Opus 4.8 leads 78.4 to 12.6.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 98.3% for Claude Opus 4.8 and 2.5% for Qwen2.5 7B Instruct.
  • Qwen2.5 7B Instruct is cheaper at $0.17 / $0.70 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.8.
  • Claude Opus 4.8 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 131K.
  • Qwen2.5 7B Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.8Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
ProviderAnthropicAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index60.729.0
Released2026-05-282024-09
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M131K
Max output128K8K
Input $ / M tokens$5$0.17
Output $ / M tokens$25$0.70
Results tracked6515

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 59.9 (#12), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 36.5 (#208)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
DeepSWE59%—
FrontierCode46.5%—
LMArena WebDev1556—
SciCode53.5%—
GSO47.1%—
WeirdML82.9%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—37.6%
LMArena Coding1490—
BigCodeBench Complete—46.1%
ALE-Bench1,564—

Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 47.6 (#11), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 23.8 (#124)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
APEX-Agents48.9%—
OSWorld 2.020.6%—
Remote Labor Index8.3%—
τ²-bench Banking39.7%—
DeepResearch Bench50.2%—
PostTrainBench33.8%—
BALROG—7.8%
GBAEval70.9%—
GDP.pdf24%—
LMArena Search1204—
Vending-Bench 25,787—

Reasoning Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 64.7 (#16), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 14.8 (#322)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
Chess Puzzles34%0%
DTBench94.9%47.7%
LMCA57.5%6.4%
Epoch Capabilities Index158.21118.51
ARC-AGI-272.1%—
SimpleBench64.8%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark88.8%—
NYT Connections (extended)91.1%—
ARC-AGI-192.5%—
CritPt20.9%—
EnigmaEval23.5%—
EBR-Bench28.6%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1482—
Mystery Game Puzzles36%—
Surface Evolver Bench87.5%—
Bench to the Future 30.14—
ForecastBench59.9—

Math Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 78.4 (#13), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 12.6 (#306)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202598.3%2.5%
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)80%—
FrontierMath Tier 456.1%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions91.8%—
ProofBench69%—
Omni-MATH—29.4%
LMArena Math1487—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)47.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)31.3%—

Knowledge Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 61.3 (#29), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 17.0 (#286)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
GPQA Diamond91%35.5%
SimpleQA Verified53%—
MMLU-Pro—53.9%
GPQA (HELM)—34.1%
LMArena Expert1502—
MMLU—72.9%

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.8: 42.9 (#26), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
LMArena Vision1294—
Blueprint-Bench 214.5%—
Furniture Assembly42.5%—
LMArena Document1475—

Multilingual Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.8: 55.2 (#33), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
LMArena Non-English1450—
LMArena Chinese1507—
LMArena French1481—
LMArena German1472—
LMArena Japanese1440—
LMArena Korean1432—
LMArena Russian1474—
LMArena Spanish1466—

Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 77.4 (#24), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 63.2 (#231)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
IFEval—74.1%
LMArena Instruction Following1476—

Long Context Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.8: 45.4 (#35), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
LMArena Longer Query1483—

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 72.0 (#16), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 48.8 (#195)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
LMArena Text1461—
LMArena Creative Writing1454—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1840—
WildBench—73.1%
EQ-Bench 41281—
LMArena Multi-Turn1476—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.8 better than Qwen2.5 7B Instruct?

Claude Opus 4.8 is the stronger model overall, scoring 60.7 to 29.0 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5 7B Instruct costs 33× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.8's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.8 or Qwen2.5 7B Instruct?

Qwen2.5 7B Instruct is cheaper. It lists at $0.17 per million input tokens and $0.70 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.8 lists at $5 and $25.

Is Claude Opus 4.8 or Qwen2.5 7B Instruct better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.8 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 59.9 versus 36.5 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 4.8 does, with 1M tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.8 and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct share?

6 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.8 has 65 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct has 15.

Related comparisons

Go deeper