# Claude Opus 5 vs Qwen3.7 Max

> Claude Opus 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 67.7 to 51.4 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.7 Max costs 2.7× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/claude-opus-5-vs-qwen3-7-max
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 32

## Summary

- They share 32 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 5 scores higher in 9 categories and Qwen3.7 Max in 0 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in agentic & tool use, where Claude Opus 5 leads 55.5 to 21.8.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is GBAEval: 79.6% for Claude Opus 5 and 0.4% for Qwen3.7 Max.
- Qwen3.7 Max is cheaper at $2.50 / $7.50 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 5.

## Snapshot

| | Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 67.7 | 51.4 |
| Rank | 4 | 35 |
| Context | 1M | 1M |
| Input $/M | $5 | $2.50 |
| Output $/M | $25 | $7.50 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |

## Coding

- Claude Opus 5: 67.0 (#5)
- Qwen3.7 Max: 50.2 (#43)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1694 | 1515 |
| SciCode | 56.4% | 48.8% |
| LMArena Coding | 1533 | 1498 |
| ALE-Bench | 2,165 | 1,189 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 77.3% |
| DeepSWE | 73.6% | — |
| FrontierCode | 53.4% | — |
| CursorBench | 46.6% | — |
| FrontierSWE | 52% | — |
| WeirdML | 91.8% | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Claude Opus 5: 55.5 (#1)
- Qwen3.7 Max: 21.8 (#129)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| GBAEval | 79.6% | 0.4% |
| APEX-Agents | 65.8% | — |
| OSWorld 2.0 | 31.4% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 48.7% | — |
| PostTrainBench | 35% | — |
| BALROG | 63.4% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 24% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 11,182 | — |

## Reasoning

- Claude Opus 5: 77.1 (#3)
- Qwen3.7 Max: 48.4 (#36)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleBench | 80.6% | 70.4% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 94.3% | 85.1% |
| CritPt | 29.1% | 13.4% |
| Chess Puzzles | 42% | 19% |
| EBR-Bench | 45.7% | 9.5% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1525 | 1483 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 59% | 32% |
| DTBench | 97.9% | 92.3% |
| LMCA | 64.5% | 44% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 162.67 | 153.74 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 90.4% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | — |
| Bench to the Future 3 | 0.12 | — |

## Math

- Claude Opus 5: 86.1 (#6)
- Qwen3.7 Max: 62.3 (#26)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 85.6% | 64.6% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 73.2% | 34.1% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 98.9% | 95.6% |
| ProofBench | 99% | 26% |
| LMArena Math | 1533 | 1488 |

## Knowledge

- Claude Opus 5: 66.8 (#8)
- Qwen3.7 Max: 61.7 (#24)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 93.9% | 90.9% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 59.9% | 55.8% |
| LMArena Expert | 1558 | 1488 |

## Multimodal

- Claude Opus 5: 51.1 (#6)
- Qwen3.7 Max: —

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1321 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 30.4% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 60.8% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1516 | — |

## Multilingual

- Claude Opus 5: 58.8 (#3)
- Qwen3.7 Max: 57.1 (#13)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1500 | 1475 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1575 | 1533 |
| LMArena Russian | 1507 | 1482 |
| LMArena French | 1522 | — |
| LMArena German | 1522 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1510 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1526 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1519 | — |

## Instruction Following

- Claude Opus 5: 79.3 (#5)
- Qwen3.7 Max: 76.9 (#34)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1516 | 1460 |

## Long Context

- Claude Opus 5: 46.5 (#20)
- Qwen3.7 Max: 45.4 (#34)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1516 | 1484 |

## Writing & Preference

- Claude Opus 5: 79.3 (#2)
- Qwen3.7 Max: 65.2 (#52)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1506 | 1476 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1491 | 1450 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1385 | 1110 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1496 | 1482 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2133 | — |

## FAQ

### Is Claude Opus 5 better than Qwen3.7 Max?

Claude Opus 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 67.7 to 51.4 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.7 Max costs 2.7× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 5 or Qwen3.7 Max?

Qwen3.7 Max is cheaper. It lists at $2.50 per million input tokens and $7.50 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 5 lists at $5 and $25.

### Is Claude Opus 5 or Qwen3.7 Max better for coding?

Claude Opus 5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 67.0 versus 50.2 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Both accept 1M tokens.

### How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 5 and Qwen3.7 Max share?

32 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 5 has 57 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Max has 33.