Claude Opus 4.5vsQwen3.7-Plus
Claude Opus 4.5 | Qwen3.7-Plus | |
|---|---|---|
| API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins · base tier | ||
Input priceWhat you pay for everything you send the model — your question, plus any documents or earlier conversation you include with it. | $5.00 | $0.40 |
Output priceWhat you pay for the text the model writes back. It is normally the dearer half: producing an answer costs more than reading one. | $25.00 | $1.60 |
Cached input priceA reduced rate for text you send over and over. If every request starts with the same instructions or the same document, the provider keeps a copy ready and charges less to read it again. | $0.50 | — |
Cheapest inputLowest input rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. The cheapest endpoint may run a quantised build or a shorter context — see "Available from" on the model page. | $5.00Amazon Bedrock | — |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $25.00Amazon Bedrock | — |
| Benchmarks | ||
SWE-Bench VerifiedCoding — Real coding tasks pulled from open-source projects — the AI has to find and fix actual bugs. A human-checked version of the original SWE-Bench. Higher is better. | 80.9% | 77.7% |
Humanity's Last Exam · with toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects. “With tools” means the AI is allowed to search the web or run code while answering. Higher is better. | 30.8% | 34.7% |
OSWorld-VerifiedAgentic computer use — Can the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Higher is better. | 66.3% | 73.3% |
| BenchmarksPublished by one model only | ||
BullshitBench v2Nonsense detection — Given a confidently-worded but nonsensical prompt, does the AI spot that it makes no sense and push back — instead of playing along and inventing an answer? The score is how often it clearly called out the nonsense. Higher is better. | 90% | — |
LiveCodeBenchCompetitive coding — Coding problems published so recently the AI can't have seen them in training — a contamination-free test of raw programming skill. Higher is better. | — | 89.6% |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 87% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Anthropic | Qwen |
| Release date | Nov 24 2025 | Jun 1 2026 |
| Access | Proprietary | Proprietary |
Other comparisons
Frequently asked questions
Qwen3.7-Plus leads Claude Opus 4.5 on 2 of the 3 benchmarks they both report (SWE-Bench Verified, Humanity's Last Exam, OSWorld-Verified). Qwen3.7-Plus is cheaper on both input and output: $0.40 vs $5.00 per million input tokens, and $1.60 vs $25.00 per million output tokens. Figures are base-tier rates. Claude Opus 4.5 shipped 189 days before Qwen3.7-Plus, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Published specifications for these two models are limited — see each model page for the latest details.
On SWE-Bench Verified, Claude Opus 4.5 leads at 80.9% vs Qwen3.7-Plus at 77.7%. On Humanity's Last Exam · with tools, Qwen3.7-Plus leads at 34.7% vs Claude Opus 4.5 at 30.8%. On OSWorld-Verified, Qwen3.7-Plus leads at 73.3% vs Claude Opus 4.5 at 66.3%.
Claude Opus 4.5 was released by Anthropic on Nov 24 2025.
Qwen3.7-Plus was released by Qwen on Jun 1 2026.
Claude Opus 4.5 leads on SWE-Bench Verified — Claude Opus 4.5 80.9% vs Qwen3.7-Plus 77.7%.
Qwen3.7-Plus leads on Humanity's Last Exam · with tools — Claude Opus 4.5 30.8% vs Qwen3.7-Plus 34.7%.
Qwen3.7-Plus is cheaper on both input and output: $0.40 vs $5.00 per million input tokens, and $1.60 vs $25.00 per million output tokens. Figures are base-tier rates. Rates are pay-as-you-go API prices verified on August 18, 2026.