Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.8 vs Qwen3-1.7B

Claude Opus 4.8 is the stronger model overall, scoring 60.7 to 26.6 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 3 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.8 Anthropic

60.7

Rank #13 Confirmed

Qwen3-1.7B Alibaba (Qwen)

26.6

Rank #336 Reported

Summary

  • They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.8 scores higher in 4 categories and Qwen3-1.7B in 0 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Claude Opus 4.8 leads 78.4 to 16.3.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 98.3% for Claude Opus 4.8 and 8.1% for Qwen3-1.7B.
  • Qwen3-1.7B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.8Qwen3-1.7B
ProviderAnthropicAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index60.726.6
Released2026-05-282025-04-29
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M—
Max output128K—
Input $ / M tokens$5—
Output $ / M tokens$25—
Results tracked654

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.8: 59.9 (#12), Qwen3-1.7B: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3-1.7B
DeepSWE59%—
FrontierCode46.5%—
LMArena WebDev1556—
SciCode53.5%—
GSO47.1%—
WeirdML82.9%—
LMArena Coding1490—
ALE-Bench1,564—

Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 47.6 (#11), Qwen3-1.7B: 24.7 (#115)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3-1.7B
APEX-Agents48.9%—
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—28.4%
OSWorld 2.020.6%—
Remote Labor Index8.3%—
τ²-bench Banking39.7%—
DeepResearch Bench50.2%—
PostTrainBench33.8%—
GBAEval70.9%—
GDP.pdf24%—
LMArena Search1204—
Vending-Bench 25,787—

Reasoning Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 64.7 (#16), Qwen3-1.7B: 19.2 (#267)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3-1.7B
Chess Puzzles34%0%
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%—
DTBench94.9%—
LMCA57.5%—
Surface Evolver Bench87.5%—
Bench to the Future 30.14—
Epoch Capabilities Index158.21—
ForecastBench59.9—

Math Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 78.4 (#13), Qwen3-1.7B: 16.3 (#294)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3-1.7B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202598.3%8.1%
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)80%—
FrontierMath Tier 456.1%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions91.8%—
ProofBench69%—
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), Qwen3-1.7B: 19.6 (#278)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3-1.7B
GPQA Diamond91%38%
SimpleQA Verified53%—
LMArena Expert1502—

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.8: 42.9 (#26), Qwen3-1.7B: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3-1.7B
LMArena Vision1294—
Blueprint-Bench 214.5%—
Furniture Assembly42.5%—
LMArena Document1475—

Multilingual Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.8: 55.2 (#33), Qwen3-1.7B: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3-1.7B
LMArena Non-English1450—
LMArena Chinese1507—
LMArena French1481—
LMArena German1472—
LMArena Japanese1440—
LMArena Korean1432—
LMArena Russian1474—
LMArena Spanish1466—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.8: 77.4 (#24), Qwen3-1.7B: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3-1.7B
LMArena Instruction Following1476—

Long Context Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.8: 45.4 (#35), Qwen3-1.7B: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3-1.7B
LMArena Longer Query1483—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.8: 72.0 (#16), Qwen3-1.7B: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen3-1.7B
LMArena Text1461—
LMArena Creative Writing1454—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1840—
EQ-Bench 41281—
LMArena Multi-Turn1476—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.8 better than Qwen3-1.7B?

Claude Opus 4.8 is the stronger model overall, scoring 60.7 to 26.6 on the Noometry Index.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.8 and Qwen3-1.7B share?

3 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.8 has 65 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3-1.7B has 4.

Related comparisons

Go deeper