Claude Opus 4.7 vs Qwen3.6 Plus
Wins 6 of 8 areas
Coding · Agents · Reasoning · Facts · Images and charts · Math
Wins 0 of 8 areas
—
Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger all-rounder.Qwen3.6 Plus is cheaper.
Scores updated · 48 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 software90Claude Opus 4.79 of 9 tests
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own40Claude Opus 4.74 of 4 tests
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking40Claude Opus 4.74 of 4 tests
- MathCompetition and research-level math30Claude Opus 4.73 of 4 tests · 1 tie
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up21Claude Opus 4.72 of 3 tests
- Images and chartsUnderstanding pictures, charts and video10Claude Opus 4.71 of 2 tests · 1 tie
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts00Even0 each · 1 tie
- 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 Plus 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
- Unpublished advanced math problemsFrontierMath Tiers 1-3 (v2)+31.9points ahead
- Answers hard knowledge questions correctlyAA-Omniscience · Accuracy+22.5points ahead
- Command-line tasks in a real terminalTerminal-Bench 2.1+21.7points ahead
Where Qwen3.6 Plus pulls ahead
- Follows unfamiliar, precisely checkable instructionsIFBench+16.6points ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+7.7points ahead
Every test, side by side
All 48 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 21.783.161.4+21.7
- SciCodeClaude Opus 4.7 by 13.854.540.7+13.8
- LMArena · WebDevClaude Opus 4.7 by 96 rating points15571461+96 rating
- LiveBench · Agentic CodingClaude Opus 4.7 by 9.350.741.4+9.3
- SWE-bench VerifiedClaude Opus 4.7 by 8.887.678.8+8.8
- SWE-bench ProClaude Opus 4.7 by 7.764.356.6+7.7
- Terminal-Bench HardClaude Opus 4.7 by 7.651.543.9+7.6
- SWE-bench MultilingualClaude Opus 4.7 by 6.780.573.8+6.7
- LiveBench · CodingClaude Opus 4.7 by 3.982.178.2+3.9
AgentsClaude Opus 4.7
- GDPValClaude Opus 4.7 by 18.142.824.7+18.1
- OSWorld-VerifiedClaude Opus 4.7 by 15.57862.5+15.5
- τ-Bench V3 · BankingClaude Opus 4.7 by 13.834.620.8+13.8
- MCP AtlasClaude Opus 4.7 by 3.277.374.1+3.2
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.7
- Humanity's Last ExamClaude Opus 4.7 by 14.542.327.8+14.5
- LiveBench · ReasoningClaude Opus 4.7 by 11.487.275.8+11.4
- CritPtClaude Opus 4.7 by 9.1122.9+9.1
- GPQA DiamondClaude Opus 4.7 by 3.291.488.2+3.2
FactsClaude Opus 4.7
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyClaude Opus 4.7 by 22.548.926.4+22.5
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationQwen3.6 Plus by 7.757.765.4+7.7
- SimpleQA VerifiedClaude Opus 4.7 by 7.651.744.1+7.6
Images and chartsClaude Opus 4.7
- CharXiv (RQ)Claude Opus 4.7 by 9.59181.5+9.5
- MMMU-Protie78.878tie
MathClaude Opus 4.7
- FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 (v2)Claude Opus 4.7 by 31.970.238.3+31.9
- LiveBench · MathematicsClaude Opus 4.7 by 9.292.883.7+9.2
- HMMT Feb. 2026Claude Opus 4.7 by 6.193.987.8+6.1
- AIME 2026tie95.895.3tie
Following instructionsEven
- IFBenchQwen3.6 Plus by 16.658.675.2+16.6
- LiveBench · Instruction FollowingClaude Opus 4.7 by 8.466.758.3+8.4
Other results19 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 26.427.30.9+26.4
- DynaMathQwen3.6 Plus by 24.963.188+24.9
- ToolathlonClaude Opus 4.7 by 19.559.339.8+19.5
- Artificial Analysis Coding IndexClaude Opus 4.7 by 19.173.654.5+19.1
- frontiermath_tier_4_v1Claude Opus 4.7 by 14.622.98.3+14.6
- AA IntelligenceClaude Opus 4.7 by 13.740.727+13.7
- ERQAQwen3.6 Plus by 13.252.565.7+13.2
- ScreenSpot-Pro (No tools)Claude Opus 4.7 by 11.379.568.2+11.3
- SimpleVQAQwen3.6 Plus by 10.856.567.3+10.8
- Finance Agent v2Claude Opus 4.7 by 10.651.540.9+10.6
- AA Agentic IndexClaude Opus 4.7 by 10.539.529+10.5
- RealWorldQAQwen3.6 Plus by 9.875.685.4+9.8
- τ²-Bench Telecom (AA run)Qwen3.6 Plus by 9.188.697.7+9.1
- livebench_data_analysisClaude Opus 4.7 by 8.478.369.9+8.4
- Terminal-Bench 2.0Claude Opus 4.7 by 7.869.461.6+7.8
- LiveBenchClaude Opus 4.7 by 676.970.8+6
- HLE (with tools)Claude Opus 4.7 by 4.154.750.6+4.1
- livebench_languageClaude Opus 4.7 by 2.977.975+2.9
- MMMLUClaude Opus 4.7 by 291.589.5+2
Questions people ask
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.7 or Qwen3.6 Plus?
Claude Opus 4.7 wins six of the eight areas we test: coding, agents, reasoning, facts, images and charts and math. Qwen3.6 Plus wins none, but costs 88% less. They are level on long documents and following instructions.
Which is better for coding?
Claude Opus 4.7. It wins 9 of the 9 coding tests both models report; Qwen3.6 Plus 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 Plus costs $0.50 and $3.00. That makes Qwen3.6 Plus about 88% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 48 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 29 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 19 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.