Claude Opus 4.7 vs Qwen3.5 35B A3B
Wins 6 of 8 areas
Coding · Agents · Reasoning · Facts · Math · Long documents
Wins 1 of 8 areas
Following instructions
Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger all-rounder.Qwen3.5 35B A3B is cheaper and better at following instructions.
Both rank among the ten best models we track in images and charts.
Scores updated · 44 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 software70Claude Opus 4.77 of 7 tests
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own60Claude Opus 4.76 of 6 tests
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking30Claude Opus 4.73 of 3 tests
- MathCompetition and research-level math20Claude Opus 4.72 of 2 tests
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up21Claude Opus 4.72 of 3 tests
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts10Claude Opus 4.71 of 1 test
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked01Qwen3.5 35B A3B1 of 1 test
- Images and chartsUnderstanding pictures, charts and video22Even2 each
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 35B A3B costs 93% less for the same work.
The biggest differences
The three tests each model wins by the widest margin. Scores are out of 100.
Where Claude Opus 4.7 pulls ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+43.1points ahead
- Command-line tasks in a real terminalTerminal-Bench 2.1+42.3points ahead
- Real work tasks from 44 professionsGDPVal+37.2points ahead
Where Qwen3.5 35B A3B pulls ahead
- Follows unfamiliar, precisely checkable instructionsIFBench+13.9points ahead
- Reads and reasons about text in imagesOCRBenchv2+8.4points ahead
- Math problems shown in pictures and chartsMathVista+1.8points ahead
Every test, side by side
All 44 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 42.383.140.8+42.3
- LMArena · WebDevClaude Opus 4.7 by 307 rating points15571250+307 rating
- Terminal-Bench HardClaude Opus 4.7 by 2551.526.5+25
- SWE-bench MultilingualClaude Opus 4.7 by 20.280.560.3+20.2
- SWE-bench ProClaude Opus 4.7 by 19.764.344.6+19.7
- SWE-bench VerifiedClaude Opus 4.7 by 18.487.669.2+18.4
- SciCodeClaude Opus 4.7 by 16.854.537.7+16.8
AgentsClaude Opus 4.7
- GDPValClaude Opus 4.7 by 37.242.85.6+37.2
- τ-Bench V3 · BankingClaude Opus 4.7 by 29.734.64.9+29.7
- OSWorld-VerifiedClaude Opus 4.7 by 27.882.354.5+27.8
- AA IT-Bench SREClaude Opus 4.7 by 25.246.721.5+25.2
- BrowseCompClaude Opus 4.7 by 18.379.361+18.3
- MCP AtlasClaude Opus 4.7 by 14.977.362.4+14.9
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.7
- Humanity's Last ExamClaude Opus 4.7 by 21.342.321+21.3
- CritPtClaude Opus 4.7 by 11.1120.9+11.1
- GPQA DiamondClaude Opus 4.7 by 6.991.484.5+6.9
FactsClaude Opus 4.7
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationClaude Opus 4.7 by 43.157.714.6+43.1
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyClaude Opus 4.7 by 28.848.920.1+28.8
- Vectara HHEM hallucination ratelower is betterQwen3.5 35B A3B by 1.51210.5+1.5
Images and chartsEven
- CharXiv (RQ)Claude Opus 4.7 by 13.59177.5+13.5
- OCRBenchv2Qwen3.5 35B A3B by 8.456.965.3+8.4
- MMMU-ProClaude Opus 4.7 by 6.178.872.7+6.1
- MathVistaQwen3.5 35B A3B by 1.884.486.2+1.8
MathClaude Opus 4.7
- HMMT Feb. 2026Claude Opus 4.7 by 12.193.981.8+12.1
- AIME 2026Claude Opus 4.7 by 2.595.893.3+2.5
Following instructionsQwen3.5 35B A3B
- IFBenchQwen3.5 35B A3B by 13.958.672.5+13.9
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 75.427.3-48.1+75.4
- Artificial Analysis Coding IndexClaude Opus 4.7 by 36.673.637+36.6
- Terminal-Bench 2.0Claude Opus 4.7 by 28.969.440.5+28.9
- AA Agentic IndexClaude Opus 4.7 by 27.739.511.8+27.7
- DynaMathQwen3.5 35B A3B by 21.963.185+21.9
- AA IntelligenceClaude Opus 4.7 by 21.440.719.3+21.4
- BabyVisionQwen3.5 35B A3B by 16.222.238.4+16.2
- ERQAQwen3.5 35B A3B by 12.352.564.8+12.3
- ScreenSpot-Pro (No tools)Claude Opus 4.7 by 10.979.568.6+10.9
- RealWorldQAQwen3.5 35B A3B by 8.575.684.1+8.5
- MMMLUClaude Opus 4.7 by 6.391.585.2+6.3
- EmbSpatial-BenchQwen3.5 35B A3B by 5.977.283.1+5.9
- vectara_avg_summary_lengthClaude Opus 4.7 by 54.2 rating points149.194.9+54.2 rating
- SimpleVQAQwen3.5 35B A3B by 1.856.558.3+1.8
- vectara_answer_rateQwen3.5 35B A3B by 1.89899.8+1.8
- vectara_factual_consistencyQwen3.5 35B A3B by 1.58889.5+1.5
- τ²-Bench Telecom (AA run)tie88.689.2tie
Questions people ask
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.7 or Qwen3.5 35B A3B?
Claude Opus 4.7 wins six of the eight areas we test: coding, agents, reasoning, facts, math and long documents. Qwen3.5 35B A3B wins following instructions, and costs 93% less. They are level on images and charts.
Which is better for coding?
Claude Opus 4.7. It wins 7 of the 7 coding tests both models report; Qwen3.5 35B A3B 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 35B A3B costs $0.25 and $2.00. That makes Qwen3.5 35B A3B about 93% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 44 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 27 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.