Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.6 vs Qwen3.7 Max

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 23 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

68.59/100
Margin
4.3pts
winning →
72.84/100
2 category wins2 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.6 #16 (Supported); Qwen3.7 Max #10 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.6 and Qwen3.7 Max share 23 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 23 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.6; 35 to Qwen3.7 Max.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
23
Claude Opus 4.6 only
23
Qwen3.7 Max only
35
Comparable categories
4 / 8

Pick Qwen3.7 Max if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Opus 4.6 only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 23 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 4 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

Qwen3.7 Max is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 72.84 to 68.59. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Qwen3.7 Max's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 97.1 against 36.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SuperGPQA, 95% to 73.6%. Claude Opus 4.6 does hit back in knowledge, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

Qwen3.7 Max is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude Opus 4.6 is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use.

Category breakdown

Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.

Category scores and score margins for Claude Opus 4.6 and Qwen3.7 Max
CategoryClaude Opus 4.6ΔQwen3.7 Max
MathClaude Opus 4.636.3Margin→ 60.8Qwen3.7 Max97.1
CodingClaude Opus 4.668.1Margin→ 9.8Qwen3.7 Max77.9
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.669.1Margin← 4.9Qwen3.7 Max64.2
AgenticClaude Opus 4.673.0Margin← 3.3Qwen3.7 Max69.7
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.6Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Max90.4
MultilingualClaude Opus 4.6Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Max87.0
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.677.3MarginNo overlapQwen3.7 MaxNot measured
Inst. FollowingClaude Opus 4.6Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Max84.4

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Claude Opus 4.6B · Qwen3.7 Max

  1. SuperGPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 95%B 73.6%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.6Δ 21.4
    SuperGPQA: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 95%; Qwen3.7 Max scored 73.6%. Claude Opus 4.6 wins this benchmark.

  2. HLE

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 53%B 41.4%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.6Δ 11.6
    HLE: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 53%; Qwen3.7 Max scored 41.4%. Claude Opus 4.6 wins this benchmark.

  3. MMLU-Pro

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 82%B 89.6%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 MaxΔ 7.6
    MMLU-Pro: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 82%; Qwen3.7 Max scored 89.6%. Qwen3.7 Max wins this benchmark.

  4. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 53.4%B 60.6%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 MaxΔ 7.2
    SWE-bench Pro: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 53.4%; Qwen3.7 Max scored 60.6%. Qwen3.7 Max wins this benchmark.

  5. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 65.4%B 69.7%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 MaxΔ 4.3
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 65.4%; Qwen3.7 Max scored 69.7%. Qwen3.7 Max wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricClaude Opus 4.6Qwen3.7 MaxComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.6$5 input / $25 outputQwen3.7 MaxNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.640 tok/sQwen3.7 MaxNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.61.78 sQwen3.7 MaxNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.61MQwen3.7 Max1MListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticClaude Opus 4.6 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen3.7 MaxResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 65.4%69.7%Qwen3.7 Max leads
BrowseCompSource 83.7%—Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 72.7%—Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 84.8%94.7%Qwen3.7 Max leads
Claw-EvalSource 70.4%65.2%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
DeepSearchQASource 73.7%—Not comparable
CyberGymSource 66.6%—Not comparable
Gert LabsSource 61.85%64.27%Qwen3.7 Max leads
ResearchClawBenchSource 19.9%18.7%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
JobBenchSource 36.7%—Not comparable
QwenClawBenchSource —64.3%Not comparable
QwenWebBenchSource —1568Not comparable
BFCL v4Source —75.0%Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource —76.4%Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource —47.9%Not comparable
HLE w/ toolsSource —53.5%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource —30.6%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —38.7%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —1273Not comparable
AA BriefcaseSource —908Not comparable
AA AutomationBenchSource —25.6%Not comparable
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource —45.0%Not comparable
AA ITBenchSource —42.5%Not comparable
terminalBenchHardSource —50.8%Not comparable
aaTerminalBench21Source —74.5%Not comparable
AA Harvey LABSource —83.4%Not comparable
CodingQwen3.7 Max wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen3.7 MaxResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 80.8%80.4%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
SWE-bench Verified*Source 75.6%—Not comparable
LiveCodeBench ProSource 70.7%—Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 53.4%60.6%Qwen3.7 Max leads
SWE-RebenchSource 65.3%—Not comparable
React Native EvalsSource 84.1%—Not comparable
Vibe Code BenchSource 57.57%—Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 45.7%48.8%Qwen3.7 Max leads
FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource 26.9%—Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource —78.3%Not comparable
NL2RepoSource —47.2%Not comparable
SciCodeSource —53.5%Not comparable
LiveCodeBenchSource —91.6%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —69.7%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource —66.0%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen3.7 MaxResult
AA-LCRSource 58.3%69.0%Qwen3.7 Max leads
CritPtSource 2.8%13.4%Qwen3.7 Max leads
MRCRv2Source —90.4%Not comparable
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.6 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen3.7 MaxResult
GPQASource 91.3%92.4%Qwen3.7 Max leads
GPQA-DSource 89.2%92.4%Qwen3.7 Max leads
SuperGPQASource 95%73.6%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
MMLU-ProSource 82%89.6%Qwen3.7 Max leads
MMLU-Pro (Arcee)Source 89.1%—Not comparable
HLESource 53%41.4%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
HLE w/o toolsSource 40%—Not comparable
HealthBench HardSource 14.8%—Not comparable
MedXpertQA (Text)Source 52.1%—Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 37.8%46.0%Qwen3.7 Max leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 84.0%92.3%Qwen3.7 Max leads
AA-HLESource 18.6%38.1%Qwen3.7 Max leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 3.5%14.1%Qwen3.7 Max leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 45.2%30.1%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 76.0%22.9%Qwen3.7 Max leads
MMLU-ReduxSource —95%Not comparable
MMMLUSource —90.3%Not comparable
MathQwen3.7 Max wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen3.7 MaxResult
AIME25 (Arcee)Source 99.8%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 40.700%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 22.900%—Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2026Source —97.1%Not comparable
IMOAnswerBenchSource —90.0%Not comparable
ApexSource —44.5%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen3.7 MaxResult
MMLU-ProXSource —87%Not comparable
NOVA-63Source —59.0%Not comparable
INCLUDESource —86.2%Not comparable
MAXIFESource —89.2%Not comparable
PolyMathSource —86.5%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen3.7 MaxResult
MMMU-ProSource 77.3%—Not comparable
ERQASource 51.6%—Not comparable
ScreenSpot ProSource 83.1%—Not comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)Source 64.8%—Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 72.5%—Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 13251293Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen3.7 MaxResult
AA-IFBenchSource 44.6%80.5%Qwen3.7 Max leads
IFEvalSource —94.3%Not comparable
IFBenchSource —79.1%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (5)

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.6 or Qwen3.7 Max?

Qwen3.7 Max is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 72.84 to 68.59. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SuperGPQA, where the scores are 95% and 73.6%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 4.6 or Qwen3.7 Max?

Claude Opus 4.6 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 69.1 versus 64.2. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.6 or Qwen3.7 Max?

Qwen3.7 Max has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 77.9 versus 68.1. Inside this category, SWE-bench Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for math, Claude Opus 4.6 or Qwen3.7 Max?

Qwen3.7 Max has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 97.1 versus 36.3. Claude Opus 4.6 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.6 or Qwen3.7 Max?

Claude Opus 4.6 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 73 versus 69.7. Inside this category, τ²-bench results is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Anthropic Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 23, 2026

Choose a model with this week’s evidence

Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.

One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.