Claude Opus 4.7 vs Qwen3.5 27B
Wins 7 of 8 areas
Coding · Agents · Reasoning · Facts · Images and charts · Math · Long documents
Wins 1 of 8 areas
Following instructions
Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger all-rounder.Qwen3.5 27B is cheaper and better at following instructions.
Both rank among the ten best models we track in images and charts.
Scores updated · 42 tests both models report · How we compare
Where each one wins
Tests won in each of the eight areas we test. 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 software60Claude Opus 4.76 of 6 tests
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own50Claude Opus 4.75 of 5 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
- MathCompetition and research-level math20Claude Opus 4.72 of 2 tests
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts10Claude Opus 4.71 of 1 test
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked01Qwen3.5 27B1 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 27B costs 91% 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+39.2points ahead
- Answers hard knowledge questions correctlyAA-Omniscience · Accuracy+28.2points ahead
- Completes tasks by operating a computer desktopOSWorld-Verified+21.8points ahead
Every test, side by side
All 42 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
CodingClaude Opus 4.7
- LMArena · WebDevClaude Opus 4.7 by 201 rating points15581357+201 rating
- Terminal-Bench HardClaude Opus 4.7 by 18.951.532.6+18.9
- SWE-bench VerifiedClaude Opus 4.7 by 15.287.672.4+15.2
- SciCodeClaude Opus 4.7 by 1554.539.5+15
- SWE-bench ProClaude Opus 4.7 by 13.164.351.2+13.1
- SWE-bench MultilingualClaude Opus 4.7 by 11.280.569.3+11.2
AgentsClaude Opus 4.7
- OSWorld-VerifiedClaude Opus 4.7 by 21.87856.2+21.8
- BrowseCompClaude Opus 4.7 by 18.379.361+18.3
- AA IT-Bench SREClaude Opus 4.7 by 11.246.735.5+11.2
- GDPValClaude Opus 4.7 by 9.842.833+9.8
- MCP AtlasClaude Opus 4.7 by 8.977.368.4+8.9
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.7
- Humanity's Last ExamClaude Opus 4.7 by 18.442.323.9+18.4
- CritPtClaude Opus 4.7 by 11.1120.9+11.1
- GPQA DiamondClaude Opus 4.7 by 5.691.485.8+5.6
FactsClaude Opus 4.7
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationClaude Opus 4.7 by 39.257.718.5+39.2
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyClaude Opus 4.7 by 28.248.920.7+28.2
- Vectara HHEM hallucination ratelower is bettertie1212.1tie
Images and chartsClaude Opus 4.7
- CharXiv (RQ)Claude Opus 4.7 by 11.59179.5+11.5
- LMArena · VisionClaude Opus 4.7 by 73 rating points13131240+73 rating
- MMMU-ProClaude Opus 4.7 by 3.878.875+3.8
- MathVistaQwen3.5 27B by 3.484.487.8+3.4
MathClaude Opus 4.7
- HMMT Feb. 2026Claude Opus 4.7 by 12.893.981.1+12.8
- AIME 2026Claude Opus 4.7 by 4.195.891.7+4.1
Following instructionsQwen3.5 27B
- IFBenchQwen3.5 27B by 1758.675.6+17
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 71.327.3-44+71.3
- Artificial Analysis Coding IndexClaude Opus 4.7 by 38.773.634.9+38.7
- Terminal-Bench 2.0Claude Opus 4.7 by 27.869.441.6+27.8
- DynaMathQwen3.5 27B by 24.663.187.7+24.6
- BabyVisionQwen3.5 27B by 22.422.244.6+22.4
- AA IntelligenceClaude Opus 4.7 by 17.840.722.9+17.8
- AA Agentic IndexQwen3.5 27B by 15.139.554.6+15.1
- ScreenSpot-Pro (No tools)Claude Opus 4.7 by 9.279.570.3+9.2
- RealWorldQAQwen3.5 27B by 8.175.683.7+8.1
- ERQAQwen3.5 27B by 852.560.5+8
- EmbSpatial-BenchQwen3.5 27B by 7.377.284.5+7.3
- MMMLUClaude Opus 4.7 by 5.691.585.9+5.6
- vectara_avg_summary_lengthClaude Opus 4.7 by 54.7 rating points149.194.4+54.7 rating
- τ²-Bench Telecom (AA run)Qwen3.5 27B by 5.388.693.9+5.3
- vectara_answer_rateQwen3.5 27B by 1.89899.8+1.8
- SimpleVQAtie56.556tie
- vectara_factual_consistencytie8887.9tie
Questions people ask
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.7 or Qwen3.5 27B?
Claude Opus 4.7 wins seven of the eight areas we test: coding, agents, reasoning, facts, images and charts, math and long documents. Qwen3.5 27B wins following instructions, and costs 91% less.
Which is better for coding?
Claude Opus 4.7. It wins 6 of the 6 coding tests both models report; Qwen3.5 27B 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 27B costs $0.30 and $2.40. That makes Qwen3.5 27B about 91% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 42 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 25 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.