Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 5.5 vs Qwen1.5-7B

Claude Opus 5.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.6 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 5.5 Anthropic

68.6

Rank #3 Confirmed

Qwen1.5-7B Alibaba (Qwen)

31.4

Rank #273 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen1.5-7B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Claude Opus 5.5 leads 91.8 to 31.4.
  • Qwen1.5-7B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 5.5Qwen1.5-7B
ProviderAnthropicAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index68.631.4
Released2026-09-222024-02-04
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M—
Max output128K—
Input $ / M tokens$4—
Output $ / M tokens$20—
Results tracked4413

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

Category by category

Coding Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 71.9 (#3), Qwen1.5-7B: 32.2 (#276)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Qwen1.5-7B
LMArena Coding15471107
FrontierCode54.6%—
CursorBench57.8%—
LMArena WebDev1813—
FrontierSWE62.3%—
SciCode66.9%—
MirrorCode77.4%—
ALE-Bench2,147—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Claude Opus 5.5: 45.3 (#15), Qwen1.5-7B: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Qwen1.5-7B
APEX-Agents73.5%—
GDP.pdf30.6%—
Vending-Bench 29,235—

Reasoning Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 80.2 (#3), Qwen1.5-7B: 20.4 (#240)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Qwen1.5-7B
LMArena Hard Prompts15351065
ARC-AGI-293.3%—
NYT Connections (extended)88.5%—
ARC-AGI-198.5%—
CritPt31.7%—
EBR-Bench71.4%—
Mystery Game Puzzles71%—
DTBench98.9%—
LMCA68.2%—
Epoch Capabilities Index167.33—

Math Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 91.8 (#3), Qwen1.5-7B: 31.4 (#224)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Qwen1.5-7B
LMArena Math15061080
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)91.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 495%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025100%—
ProofBench100%—
FrontierMath Erdős2.9%—

Knowledge Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 66.4 (#10), Qwen1.5-7B: 28.7 (#243)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Qwen1.5-7B
LMArena Expert15471055
GPQA Diamond90.6%—
SimpleQA Verified72.2%—
MMLU—62.6%

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Opus 5.5: 57.8 (#1), Qwen1.5-7B: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Qwen1.5-7B
LMArena Vision1321—
Blueprint-Bench 251.2%—
Furniture Assembly83.3%—

Multilingual Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 59.1 (#2), Qwen1.5-7B: 28.5 (#271)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Qwen1.5-7B
LMArena Non-English15071058
LMArena Chinese15881141
LMArena Russian15201006
LMArena French1514—
LMArena Spanish1507—

Instruction Following Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 80.0 (#3), Qwen1.5-7B: 54.1 (#281)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Qwen1.5-7B
LMArena Instruction Following15371058

Long Context Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 47.1 (#19), Qwen1.5-7B: 33.1 (#266)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Qwen1.5-7B
LMArena Longer Query15321090

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 78.2 (#3), Qwen1.5-7B: 29.6 (#293)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Qwen1.5-7B
LMArena Text15151083
LMArena Creative Writing15331035
LMArena Multi-Turn14991062
EQ-Bench Creative Writing2050—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 5.5 better than Qwen1.5-7B?

Claude Opus 5.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.6 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.

Is Claude Opus 5.5 or Qwen1.5-7B better for coding?

Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 71.9 versus 32.2 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 5.5 and Qwen1.5-7B share?

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 5.5 has 44 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-7B has 13.

Related comparisons

Go deeper