Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.7 vs Qwen3.7 Max
Head-to-head evidence from 14 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.7 #12 (Supported); Qwen3.7 Max #10 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.7 and Qwen3.7 Max share 14 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 7 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.7; 44 to Qwen3.7 Max.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 14
- Claude Opus 4.7 only
- 7
- Qwen3.7 Max only
- 44
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Qwen3.7 Max if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Opus 4.7 only becomes the better choice if you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 14 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 1 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 has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 72.84 versus 71.94. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.
Qwen3.7 Max's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 97.1 against 38.6.
Qwen3.7 Max is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude Opus 4.7 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 | Claude Opus 4.7 | Δ | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Claude Opus 4.738.6 | Margin→ 58.5 | Qwen3.7 Max97.1 |
| Agentic | Claude Opus 4.7Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Max69.7 |
| Coding | Claude Opus 4.7Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Max77.9 |
| Reasoning | Claude Opus 4.7Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Max90.4 |
| Knowledge | Claude Opus 4.7Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Max64.2 |
| Multilingual | Claude Opus 4.7Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Max87.0 |
| Inst. Following | Claude Opus 4.7Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.7 Max84.4 |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen3.7 Max | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 4.7$5 input / $25 output | Qwen3.7 MaxNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 4.7Not available | Qwen3.7 MaxNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 4.7Not available | Qwen3.7 MaxNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 4.71M | Qwen3.7 Max1M | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic22 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen3.7 Max | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 74% | 94.7% | Qwen3.7 Max leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 65.59% | 64.27% | Claude Opus 4.7 leads |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 20.7% | 18.7% | Claude Opus 4.7 leads |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | 13.9% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 69.7% | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 64.3% | Not comparable |
| QwenWebBenchSource | — | 1568 | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 65.2% | Not 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 | — | 1273 | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | — | 908 | Not 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 |
Coding12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen3.7 Max | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 71.00% | — | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | 82.8% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 50.1% | 48.8% | Claude Opus 4.7 leads |
| FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource | 38.5% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 80.4% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 60.6% | 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 |
Reasoning3 benchmarks
Knowledge13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen3.7 Max | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 42.7% | 46.0% | Qwen3.7 Max leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 88.5% | 92.3% | Qwen3.7 Max leads |
| AA-HLESource | 31.2% | 38.1% | Qwen3.7 Max leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 14.2% | 14.1% | Claude Opus 4.7 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 43.5% | 30.1% | Claude Opus 4.7 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 51.9% | 22.9% | Qwen3.7 Max leads |
| GPQASource | — | 92.4% | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 92.4% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 41.4% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 89.6% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ReduxSource | — | 95% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 73.6% | Not comparable |
| MMMLUSource | — | 90.3% | Not comparable |
MathQwen3.7 Max wins5 benchmarks
Multilingual5 benchmarks
Multimodal2 benchmarks
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.7 or Qwen3.7 Max?
Qwen3.7 Max is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 72.84 to 71.94.
Which is better for math, Claude Opus 4.7 or Qwen3.7 Max?
Qwen3.7 Max has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 97.1 versus 38.6. Claude Opus 4.7 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Related Comparisons
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.