Claude Opus 4.7 vs Qwen3.5 122B A10B
Wins 6 of 7 areas
Coding · Agents · Reasoning · Facts · Images and charts · Long documents
Wins 1 of 7 areas
Following instructions
Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger all-rounder.Qwen3.5 122B A10B is cheaper and better at following instructions.
Both rank among the ten best models we track in images and charts.
Scores updated · 40 tests both models report · How we compare
Where each one wins
Tests won in each of the seven areas where both have results. Each piece is one test, so a longer bar means more evidence; grey means the two scored within a point of each other.
- CodingWriting and fixing software70Claude Opus 4.77 of 7 tests
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own40Claude Opus 4.74 of 4 tests
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking30Claude Opus 4.73 of 3 tests
- Images and chartsUnderstanding pictures, charts and video31Claude Opus 4.73 of 4 tests
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up20Claude Opus 4.72 of 3 tests · 1 tie
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts10Claude Opus 4.71 of 1 test
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked01Qwen3.5 122B A10B1 of 1 test
Long documents and following instructions rest on a single test each.
What it costs
Prices per million tokens, roughly 750,000 words. The bars show the cost of a million tokens read plus a million written.
Qwen3.5 122B A10B costs 88% less for the same work.
The biggest differences
The tests each model wins by the widest margin, up to three each. Scores are out of 100.
Where Claude Opus 4.7 pulls ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+44.8points ahead
- Command-line tasks in a real terminalTerminal-Bench 2.1+35.5points ahead
- Real work tasks from 44 professionsGDPVal+26.9points ahead
Every test, side by side
All 40 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
CodingClaude Opus 4.7
- Terminal-Bench 2.1Claude Opus 4.7 by 35.583.147.6+35.5
- Terminal-Bench HardClaude Opus 4.7 by 20.451.531.1+20.4
- LMArena · WebDevClaude Opus 4.7 by 198 rating points15581360+198 rating
- SWE-bench ProClaude Opus 4.7 by 19.464.344.9+19.4
- SWE-bench MultilingualClaude Opus 4.7 by 18.580.562+18.5
- SWE-bench VerifiedClaude Opus 4.7 by 15.687.672+15.6
- SciCodeClaude Opus 4.7 by 14.854.539.7+14.8
AgentsClaude Opus 4.7
- GDPValClaude Opus 4.7 by 26.942.615.7+26.9
- OSWorld-VerifiedClaude Opus 4.7 by 207858+20
- τ-Bench V3 · BankingClaude Opus 4.7 by 19.334.615.3+19.3
- BrowseCompClaude Opus 4.7 by 15.579.363.8+15.5
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.7
- Humanity's Last ExamClaude Opus 4.7 by 17.142.325.2+17.1
- CritPtClaude Opus 4.7 by 11.4120.6+11.4
- GPQA DiamondClaude Opus 4.7 by 5.791.485.7+5.7
FactsClaude Opus 4.7
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationClaude Opus 4.7 by 44.857.712.9+44.8
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyClaude Opus 4.7 by 24.548.924.4+24.5
- Vectara HHEM hallucination ratelower is bettertie1211.2tie
Images and chartsClaude Opus 4.7
- CharXiv (RQ)Claude Opus 4.7 by 13.89177.2+13.8
- LMArena · VisionClaude Opus 4.7 by 68 rating points13131245+68 rating
- MMMU-ProClaude Opus 4.7 by 3.878.875+3.8
- MathVistaQwen3.5 122B A10B by 384.487.4+3
Following instructionsQwen3.5 122B A10B
- IFBenchQwen3.5 122B A10B by 17.158.675.7+17.1
Other results17 tests, not counted
Tests outside the eight areas. They are not counted above: several are summary scores built from other tests, or the same test under another name.
- AA-OmniscienceClaude Opus 4.7 by 68.827.3-41.5+68.8
- AA Agentic IndexClaude Opus 4.7 by 29.939.59.6+29.9
- Artificial Analysis Coding IndexClaude Opus 4.7 by 27.973.645.7+27.9
- AA IntelligenceClaude Opus 4.7 by 25.140.715.6+25.1
- DynaMathQwen3.5 122B A10B by 22.863.185.9+22.8
- Terminal-Bench 2.0Claude Opus 4.7 by 2069.449.4+20
- BabyVisionQwen3.5 122B A10B by 1822.240.2+18
- ERQAQwen3.5 122B A10B by 9.552.562+9.5
- RealWorldQAQwen3.5 122B A10B by 9.575.685.1+9.5
- ScreenSpot-Pro (No tools)Claude Opus 4.7 by 9.179.570.4+9.1
- EmbSpatial-BenchQwen3.5 122B A10B by 6.777.283.9+6.7
- vectara_avg_summary_lengthClaude Opus 4.7 by 62.7 rating points149.186.4+62.7 rating
- SimpleVQAQwen3.5 122B A10B by 5.256.561.7+5.2
- τ²-Bench Telecom (AA run)Qwen3.5 122B A10B by 588.693.6+5
- MMMLUClaude Opus 4.7 by 4.891.586.7+4.8
- vectara_answer_rateQwen3.5 122B A10B by 1.89899.8+1.8
- vectara_factual_consistencytie8888.8tie
Questions people ask
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.7 or Qwen3.5 122B A10B?
Claude Opus 4.7 wins six of the seven areas where both have results: coding, agents, reasoning, facts, images and charts and long documents. Qwen3.5 122B A10B wins following instructions, and costs 88% less.
Which is better for coding?
Claude Opus 4.7. It wins 7 of the 7 coding tests both models report; Qwen3.5 122B A10B wins none.
Which is cheaper?
Claude Opus 4.7 costs $5.00 per million input tokens and $25.00 per million output tokens; Qwen3.5 122B A10B costs $0.40 and $3.20. That makes Qwen3.5 122B A10B about 88% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 40 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 23 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 17 are listed but not counted, because several are summary scores or repeat a test. Each score is the one shown on the model's own page.