Claude Opus 4.7 vs Qwen3.6 27B
Wins 6 of 8 areas
Coding · Agents · Reasoning · Facts · Math · Long documents
Wins 0 of 8 areas
—
Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger all-rounder.Qwen3.6 27B is cheaper.
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 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 software80Claude Opus 4.78 of 8 tests
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking40Claude Opus 4.74 of 4 tests
- MathCompetition and research-level math40Claude Opus 4.74 of 4 tests
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own20Claude Opus 4.72 of 2 tests
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up20Claude Opus 4.72 of 2 tests
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts10Claude Opus 4.71 of 1 test
- Images and chartsUnderstanding pictures, charts and video22Even2 each
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked11Even1 each
Long documents rests on a single test.
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.
Qwen3.6 27B costs 86% 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
- Unpublished advanced math problemsFrontierMath Tiers 1-3 (v2)+35.1points ahead
- Answers hard knowledge questions correctlyAA-Omniscience · Accuracy+29.3points ahead
- Command-line tasks in a real terminalTerminal-Bench 2.1+22.4points ahead
Where Qwen3.6 27B pulls ahead
- Reads and reasons about text in imagesOCRBenchv2+11.4points ahead
- Follows unfamiliar, precisely checkable instructionsIFBench+9points ahead
- Math problems shown in pictures and chartsMathVista+3points 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 22.483.160.7+22.4
- Terminal-Bench HardClaude Opus 4.7 by 16.751.534.8+16.7
- SciCodeClaude Opus 4.7 by 11.754.542.8+11.7
- LiveBench · Agentic CodingClaude Opus 4.7 by 11.450.739.3+11.4
- SWE-bench ProClaude Opus 4.7 by 10.864.353.5+10.8
- SWE-bench VerifiedClaude Opus 4.7 by 10.487.677.2+10.4
- LiveBench · CodingClaude Opus 4.7 by 10.382.171.8+10.3
- SWE-bench MultilingualClaude Opus 4.7 by 9.280.571.3+9.2
AgentsClaude Opus 4.7
- GDPValClaude Opus 4.7 by 18.442.824.4+18.4
- τ-Bench V3 · BankingClaude Opus 4.7 by 17.934.616.7+17.9
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.7
- Humanity's Last ExamClaude Opus 4.7 by 19.242.323.1+19.2
- LiveBench · ReasoningClaude Opus 4.7 by 16.987.270.3+16.9
- CritPtClaude Opus 4.7 by 10.9121.1+10.9
- GPQA DiamondClaude Opus 4.7 by 7.291.484.2+7.2
FactsClaude Opus 4.7
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyClaude Opus 4.7 by 29.348.919.6+29.3
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationClaude Opus 4.7 by 757.750.7+7
Images and chartsEven
- CharXiv (RQ)Claude Opus 4.7 by 12.69178.4+12.6
- OCRBenchv2Qwen3.6 27B by 11.456.968.3+11.4
- MMMU-ProClaude Opus 4.7 by 4.278.874.6+4.2
- MathVistaQwen3.6 27B by 384.487.4+3
MathClaude Opus 4.7
- FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 (v2)Claude Opus 4.7 by 35.170.235.1+35.1
- LiveBench · MathematicsClaude Opus 4.7 by 1392.879.9+13
- HMMT Feb. 2026Claude Opus 4.7 by 9.693.984.3+9.6
- AIME 2026Claude Opus 4.7 by 1.795.894.1+1.7
Following instructionsEven
- LiveBench · Instruction FollowingClaude Opus 4.7 by 13.566.753.2+13.5
- IFBenchQwen3.6 27B by 958.667.6+9
Other results13 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 47.327.3-20+47.3
- DynaMathQwen3.6 27B by 22.563.185.6+22.5
- Artificial Analysis Coding IndexClaude Opus 4.7 by 19.973.653.7+19.9
- AA Agentic IndexClaude Opus 4.7 by 19.439.520.1+19.4
- AA IntelligenceClaude Opus 4.7 by 19.340.721.4+19.3
- livebench_languageClaude Opus 4.7 by 14.677.963.3+14.6
- Terminal-Bench 2.0Claude Opus 4.7 by 10.169.459.3+10.1
- ERQAQwen3.6 27B by 1052.562.5+10
- RealWorldQAQwen3.6 27B by 8.575.684.1+8.5
- livebench_data_analysisClaude Opus 4.7 by 7.978.370.4+7.9
- EmbSpatial-BenchQwen3.6 27B by 7.477.284.6+7.4
- τ²-Bench Telecom (AA run)Qwen3.6 27B by 5.688.694.2+5.6
- SimpleVQAtie56.556.1tie
Questions people ask
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.7 or Qwen3.6 27B?
Claude Opus 4.7 wins six of the eight areas we test: coding, agents, reasoning, facts, math and long documents. Qwen3.6 27B wins none, but costs 86% less. They are level on images and charts and following instructions.
Which is better for coding?
Claude Opus 4.7. It wins 8 of the 8 coding tests both models report; Qwen3.6 27B wins none.
Which is cheaper?
Claude Opus 4.7 costs $5.00 per million input tokens and $25.00 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 27B costs $0.60 and $3.60. That makes Qwen3.6 27B about 86% 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 27 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 13 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.