Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.8 vs Qwen3.7 Flash
Claude Opus 4.8 is the stronger model overall, scoring 60.7 to 39.9 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.7 Flash costs 182× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.8's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 7 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 7 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.8 scores higher in 3 categories and Qwen3.7 Flash in 0 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Claude Opus 4.8 leads 78.4 to 38.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3): 80% for Claude Opus 4.8 and 19.3% for Qwen3.7 Flash.
- Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper at $0.03 / $0.13 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.8.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 4.8 | Qwen3.7 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 60.7 | 39.9 |
| Released | 2026-05-28 | 2026-07-15 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1M | 1M |
| Max output | 128K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $5 | $0.03 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $25 | $0.13 |
| Results tracked | 65 | 7 |
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), Qwen3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| DeepSWE | 59% | — |
| FrontierCode | 46.5% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1556 | — |
| SciCode | 53.5% | — |
| GSO | 47.1% | — |
| WeirdML | 82.9% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1490 | — |
| ALE-Bench | 1,564 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.8: 47.6 (#11), Qwen3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 48.9% | — |
| OSWorld 2.0 | 20.6% | — |
| Remote Labor Index | 8.3% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 39.7% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 50.2% | — |
| PostTrainBench | 33.8% | — |
| GBAEval | 70.9% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 24% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1204 | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 5,787 | — |
Reasoning Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 64.7 (#16), Qwen3.7 Flash: 28.2 (#108)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 91.1% | 43.8% |
| Chess Puzzles | 34% | 23% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 36% | 15% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 158.21 | 144.64 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 72.1% | — |
| SimpleBench | 64.8% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 88.8% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 92.5% | — |
| CritPt | 20.9% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 23.5% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 28.6% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1482 | — |
| DTBench | 94.9% | — |
| LMCA | 57.5% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 87.5% | — |
| Bench to the Future 3 | 0.14 | — |
| ForecastBench | 59.9 | — |
Math Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 78.4 (#13), Qwen3.7 Flash: 38.3 (#140)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 80% | 19.3% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 98.3% | 86.7% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 56.1% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 91.8% | — |
| ProofBench | 69% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1487 | — |
| 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), Qwen3.7 Flash: 48.9 (#75)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 91% | 82.3% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 53% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1502 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.8: 42.9 (#26), Qwen3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1294 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 14.5% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 42.5% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1475 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.8: 55.2 (#33), Qwen3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1450 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1507 | — |
| LMArena French | 1481 | — |
| LMArena German | 1472 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1440 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1432 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1474 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1466 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.8: 77.4 (#24), Qwen3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1476 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.8: 45.4 (#35), Qwen3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1483 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.8: 72.0 (#16), Qwen3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1461 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1454 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1840 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1281 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1476 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4.8 better than Qwen3.7 Flash?
Claude Opus 4.8 is the stronger model overall, scoring 60.7 to 39.9 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.7 Flash costs 182× 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 Qwen3.7 Flash?
Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.03 per million input tokens and $0.13 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.8 lists at $5 and $25.
Which has the bigger context window?
Both accept 1M tokens.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.8 and Qwen3.7 Flash share?
7 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.8 has 65 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Flash has 7.