Model comparison
Claude Opus 5.5 vs Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
Claude Opus 5.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.6 to 29.0 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5 7B Instruct costs 26× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 5.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 5 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 5 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 5.5 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 5.5 leads 91.8 to 12.6.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 100% for Claude Opus 5.5 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 $4 / $20 for Claude Opus 5.5.
- Claude Opus 5.5 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 5.5 | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 68.6 | 29.0 |
| Released | 2026-09-22 | 2024-09 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1M | 131K |
| Max output | 128K | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $4 | $0.17 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $20 | $0.70 |
| Results tracked | 44 | 15 |
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), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 36.5 (#208)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierCode | 54.6% | — |
| CursorBench | 57.8% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1813 | — |
| FrontierSWE | 62.3% | — |
| SciCode | 66.9% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 37.6% |
| LMArena Coding | 1547 | — |
| MirrorCode | 77.4% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 46.1% |
| ALE-Bench | 2,147 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 45.3 (#15), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 23.8 (#124)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 73.5% | — |
| BALROG | — | 7.8% |
| GDP.pdf | 30.6% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 9,235 | — |
Reasoning Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 80.2 (#3), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 14.8 (#322)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| DTBench | 98.9% | 47.7% |
| LMCA | 68.2% | 6.4% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 167.33 | 118.51 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 93.3% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 88.5% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 98.5% | — |
| CritPt | 31.7% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| EBR-Bench | 71.4% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1535 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 71% | — |
Math Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 91.8 (#3), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 12.6 (#306)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | 2.5% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 91.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 95% | — |
| ProofBench | 100% | — |
| Omni-MATH | — | 29.4% |
| LMArena Math | 1506 | — |
| FrontierMath Erdős | 2.9% | — |
Knowledge Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 66.4 (#10), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 17.0 (#286)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 90.6% | 35.5% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 72.2% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 53.9% |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 34.1% |
| LMArena Expert | 1547 | — |
| MMLU | — | 72.9% |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Opus 5.5: 57.8 (#1), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1321 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 51.2% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 83.3% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Claude Opus 5.5: 59.1 (#2), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1507 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1588 | — |
| LMArena French | 1514 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1520 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1507 | — |
Instruction Following Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 80.0 (#3), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 63.2 (#231)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| IFEval | — | 74.1% |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1537 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Claude Opus 5.5: 47.1 (#19), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1532 | — |
Writing & Preference Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 78.2 (#3), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 48.8 (#195)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1515 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1533 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2050 | — |
| WildBench | — | 73.1% |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1499 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 5.5 better than Qwen2.5 7B Instruct?
Claude Opus 5.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.6 to 29.0 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5 7B Instruct costs 26× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 5.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 5.5 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 5.5 lists at $4 and $20.
Is Claude Opus 5.5 or Qwen2.5 7B Instruct better for coding?
Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 71.9 versus 36.5 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Claude Opus 5.5 does, with 1M tokens against 131K.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 5.5 and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct share?
5 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 5.5 has 44 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct has 15.