whichLlmmodel
Back to Dashboard

Alibaba Cloud (Qwen)Qwen3.7-MaxVSAnthropicClaude Opus 4.7

Analysis by:the whichllmmodel Editorial Team|Updated: June 2026

Our Take

We recommend Claude Opus 4.7 if your workflow requires peak coding capability, or the 2.7x cheaper Qwen3.7-Max to optimize your API budget. While both models deliver similar reasoning performance, Claude Opus 4.7 holds a clear lead in coding. Choose Claude Opus 4.7 for complex development tasks, or Qwen3.7-Max for cost optimization.
WHY?
Benchmark Calculations & Evidence:
  • Coding Benchmarks: Both models were evaluated on the SWE-bench Pro benchmark. Qwen3.7-Max scored 60.6%, while Claude Opus 4.7 scored 64.3%.
  • Reasoning Benchmarks: Both models were evaluated on the GPQA Diamond benchmark. Qwen3.7-Max scored 92.4%, while Claude Opus 4.7 scored 94.2%.
  • Cost Efficiency: Qwen3.7-Max pricing ($2.5/M input, $7.5/M output) is 2.7x cheaper than Claude Opus 4.7 ($5/M input, $25/M output).
  • Was this recommendation helpful?
    Model Specs

    Qwen3.7-Max

    Benchmarks & Scores

    Coding (swe-bench-pro)
    60.6%

    complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning

    Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)
    92.4%

    graduate-level science QA

    Cost & Context

    Cost (per 1M tokens)2.7x cheaper
    $3.75Input: $2.50 | Output: $7.50
    Context Window
    1.05M tokens
    Model Specs

    Claude Opus 4.7

    Benchmarks & Scores

    Coding (swe-bench-pro)Winner (+3.7%)
    64.3%

    complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning

    Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)Winner (+1.8%)
    94.2%

    graduate-level science QA

    Cost & Context

    Cost (per 1M tokens)
    $10.00Input: $5.00 | Output: $25.00
    Context Window
    1.05M tokens

    Frequently Asked Questions about Qwen3.7-Max vs Claude Opus 4.7

    Qwen3.7-Max is cheaper than Claude Opus 4.7. Qwen3.7-Max has a blended cost of $3.75/1M tokens, which is about 2.7x cheaper than Claude Opus 4.7 at $10.00/1M tokens.

    Claude Opus 4.7 is better for coding tasks on this benchmark. It scores 64.3% on swe-bench-pro (complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning) compared to Qwen3.7-Max which scores 60.6%.

    Do you want to find a model for your constraints?

    Use our interactive model finder to filter LLMs by reasoning capability, coding performance, cost, and context length.

    Open Model Finder