# Claude Opus 4.6 vs Qwen3.7 Plus

> Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.2 to 45.3 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.7 Plus costs 14× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/claude-opus-4-6-vs-qwen3-7-plus
- Last updated: 2026-10-12
- Shared benchmarks: 29

## Summary

- They share 29 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher in 9 categories and Qwen3.7 Plus in 1 category; 10 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in agentic & tool use, where Claude Opus 4.6 leads 51.1 to 21.4.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3): 66% for Claude Opus 4.6 and 34.4% for Qwen3.7 Plus.
- Qwen3.7 Plus is cheaper at $0.40 / $1.60 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.6.

## Snapshot

| | Claude Opus 4.6 | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 58.2 | 45.3 |
| Rank | 20 | 72 |
| Context | 1M | 1M |
| Input $/M | $5 | $0.40 |
| Output $/M | $25 | $1.60 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |

## Coding

- Claude Opus 4.6: 57.2 (#20)
- Qwen3.7 Plus: 36.6 (#206)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierCode | 26.6% | 10.2% |
| LMArena Coding | 1536 | 1473 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 78.7% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 75.6% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1547 | — |
| SWE-bench Multilingual | 72% | — |
| SciCode | — | 45.5% |
| GSO | 41.2% | — |
| WeirdML | 78% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 996.5 | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.47 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Claude Opus 4.6: 51.1 (#4)
- Qwen3.7 Plus: 21.4 (#138)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 79.8% | — |
| APEX-Agents | 46.3% | — |
| OSWorld 2.0 | — | 2.8% |
| Remote Labor Index | 4.2% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 27.3% | — |
| Cybench | 93% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 55.3% | — |
| GBAEval | 44.1% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1253 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 78.9% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 8,018 | — |

## Reasoning

- Claude Opus 4.6: 57.8 (#23)
- Qwen3.7 Plus: 39.3 (#59)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 92.1% | 74.8% |
| Chess Puzzles | 17% | 24% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1527 | 1460 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 25% | 17% |
| DTBench | 91.2% | 84% |
| LMCA | 55.8% | 37.6% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 155.24 | 147.37 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 69.2% | — |
| SimpleBench | 67.6% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 83.6% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 94% | — |
| CritPt | — | 9.1% |
| EnigmaEval | 7.6% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 80.6% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 12.7% | — |
| ForecastBench | 60 | — |

## Math

- Claude Opus 4.6: 63.0 (#31)
- Qwen3.7 Plus: 50.5 (#56)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 66% | 34.4% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 94.4% | 93.3% |
| LMArena Math | 1519 | 1466 |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 26.8% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 78.5% | — |
| ProofBench | 50% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 40.7% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 22.9% | — |

## Knowledge

- Claude Opus 4.6: 61.9 (#26)
- Qwen3.7 Plus: 54.9 (#51)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 90.5% | 87.9% |
| LMArena Expert | 1546 | 1467 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 34.4% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 47% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12.2% | — |

## Multimodal

- Claude Opus 4.6: 37.3 (#74)
- Qwen3.7 Plus: 41.8 (#33)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1316 | 1279 |
| LMArena Document | 1507 | 1444 |
| Furniture Assembly | 28.3% | — |

## Multilingual

- Claude Opus 4.6: 57.9 (#6)
- Qwen3.7 Plus: 54.8 (#38)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1489 | 1445 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1551 | 1510 |
| LMArena French | 1513 | 1473 |
| LMArena German | 1502 | 1471 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1484 | 1413 |
| LMArena Korean | 1464 | 1415 |
| LMArena Russian | 1497 | 1457 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1510 | 1457 |

## Instruction Following

- Claude Opus 4.6: 79.5 (#4)
- Qwen3.7 Plus: 75.8 (#52)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1523 | 1440 |

## Long Context

- Claude Opus 4.6: 48.1 (#13)
- Qwen3.7 Plus: 44.5 (#65)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1520 | 1455 |
| CL-bench | 20.7% | — |
| CL-bench Life | 17% | — |

## Writing & Preference

- Claude Opus 4.6: 73.5 (#10)
- Qwen3.7 Plus: 64.3 (#56)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1503 | 1455 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1505 | 1439 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1513 | 1460 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1809 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1223 | — |

## FAQ

### Is Claude Opus 4.6 better than Qwen3.7 Plus?

Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.2 to 45.3 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.7 Plus costs 14× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.6 or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus is cheaper. It lists at $0.40 per million input tokens and $1.60 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.6 lists at $5 and $25.

### Is Claude Opus 4.6 or Qwen3.7 Plus better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 57.2 versus 36.6 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Both accept 1M tokens.

### How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.6 and Qwen3.7 Plus share?

29 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.6 has 68 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Plus has 32.