Claude Opus 4.7 vs Qwen3.5 Omni Flash
Wins 7 of 7 areas
Coding · Agents · Reasoning · Facts · Images and charts · Long documents · Following instructions
Wins 0 of 7 areas
—
Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger all-rounder.Qwen3.5 Omni Flash is cheaper.
Scores updated · 16 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.
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking30Claude Opus 4.73 of 3 tests
- CodingWriting and fixing software20Claude Opus 4.72 of 2 tests
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up20Claude Opus 4.72 of 2 tests
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own10Claude Opus 4.71 of 1 test
- Images and chartsUnderstanding pictures, charts and video10Claude Opus 4.71 of 1 test
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts10Claude Opus 4.71 of 1 test
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked10Claude Opus 4.71 of 1 test
Agents, images and charts, 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 Omni Flash costs 97% 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+51.1points ahead
- Hard command-line tasks in a real terminalTerminal-Bench Hard+43.2points ahead
- Very hard expert questions across many subjectsHumanity's Last Exam+34.7points ahead
Where Qwen3.5 Omni Flash pulls ahead
No clear win on a test scored out of 100.
Every test, side by side
All 16 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
CodingClaude Opus 4.7
- Terminal-Bench HardClaude Opus 4.7 by 43.251.58.3+43.2
- SciCodeClaude Opus 4.7 by 2954.525.5+29
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.7
- Humanity's Last ExamClaude Opus 4.7 by 34.742.37.6+34.7
- GPQA DiamondClaude Opus 4.7 by 17.291.474.2+17.2
- CritPtClaude Opus 4.7 by 12120+12
FactsClaude Opus 4.7
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationClaude Opus 4.7 by 51.157.76.6+51.1
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyClaude Opus 4.7 by 34.248.914.7+34.2
Images and chartsClaude Opus 4.7
- MMMU-ProClaude Opus 4.7 by 14.178.864.7+14.1
Following instructionsClaude Opus 4.7
- IFBenchClaude Opus 4.7 by 20.658.638+20.6
Other results5 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 92.427.3-65.1+92.4
- Artificial Analysis Coding IndexClaude Opus 4.7 by 59.673.614+59.6
- AA IntelligenceClaude Opus 4.7 by 28.240.712.5+28.2
- τ²-Bench Telecom (AA run)Claude Opus 4.7 by 4.188.684.5+4.1
- AA Agentic IndexQwen3.5 Omni Flash by 2.139.541.6+2.1
Questions people ask
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.7 or Qwen3.5 Omni Flash?
Claude Opus 4.7 wins all seven areas where both have results: coding, agents, reasoning, facts, images and charts, long documents and following instructions. Qwen3.5 Omni Flash wins none, but costs 97% less.
Which is better for coding?
Claude Opus 4.7. It wins 2 of the 2 coding tests both models report; Qwen3.5 Omni Flash 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 Omni Flash costs $0.10 and $0.80. That makes Qwen3.5 Omni Flash about 97% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 16 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 11 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 5 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.