Claude Opus 4.7 vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
Claude Opus 4.7 
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next Verdict
- Claude Opus 4.7 leads on quality: 65.6 vs 59.1.
- Claude Opus 4.7 is stronger in agents & tools, composite, human preference, instruction following, knowledge, maths, multimodal, reasoning.
- Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is stronger in coding, long context.
- Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is 43× cheaper ($0.230 vs $10.00 per 1M blended).
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen3.8-Flash-Next |
|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 65.6 | 59.1 |
| Agents & tools score | 69.4 | 49.4 |
| Coding score | 64.8 | 70.8 |
| Composite score | 80.4 | 67.3 |
| Human preference score | 69.1 | – |
| Instruction following score | 58.7 | – |
| Knowledge score | 66.5 | 59.5 |
| Long context score | 65.9 | 66.4 |
| Maths score | 65.4 | – |
| Multimodal score | 65.7 | 64.3 |
| Reasoning score | 66.6 | – |
| Blended price $/M | $10.00 | $0.230 |
| Output speed | 43 tok/s | 54 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | 21.7 s | 39.9 s |
| Context window | 1M | 256k |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 36.2% | – |
| Terminal-Bench | 80.2% | – |
| SimpleBench | 61.7% | – |
| WeirdML | 76.4% | – |
| FrontierCode | 38.5% | – |
| GSO-Bench | 44.1% | – |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 156.3 | – |
| LMArena Text | 1495 | – |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1519 | – |
| LMArena Coding | 1547 | – |
| LMArena WebDev | 1557 | 1631 |
| LMArena Vision | 1317 | – |
| LMArena Agent | – | 0.8 |
| LiveBench | – | 76.2% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | – | 87.4% |
| LiveBench Coding | – | 72.5% |
| LiveBench Agentic Coding | – | 61.6% |
| LiveBench Mathematics | – | 85.8% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | – | 74.2% |
| LiveBench Language | – | 74.6% |
| AA Intelligence Index | 40.7 | 39.9 |
| IFBench | 58.6% | – |
| AA-LCR | 78.7% | 79.7% |
| MMMU-Pro | 78.8% | 79.8% |
| AA-Omniscience | 27.3 | -9.7 |
| Terminal-Bench Hard | 51.5% | – |
| GPQA Diamond (AA) | 91.4% | 92.3% |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | 42.3% | 38.0% |
| SciCode (AA) | – | 50.6% |
| τ²-Bench Telecom (AA) | 88.6% | – |
| AIME (Vals) | 96.3% | – |
| LiveCodeBench | 85.1% | – |
| MMLU-Pro | 89.9% | – |
| IOI | 47.1% | – |
| LegalBench | 85.3% | – |
| CorpFin | 66.1% | – |
| TaxEval | 75.3% | – |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals) | 68.5% | – |
| SWE-bench (Vals) | 82.0% | – |
| GPQA Diamond (Vals) | 90.2% | – |
| Vals Index | 56.1 | – |
| HiL-Bench | 41.7% | – |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1311 | – |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 73.3% | – |
Data as of 2026-09-10. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.
Claude Opus 4.7 vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next: questions
- Is Claude Opus 4.7 better than Qwen3.8-Flash-Next?
- Claude Opus 4.7 leads on quality: 65.6 vs 59.1. The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; Claude Opus 4.7 is ahead overall as of 2026-09-10, but check the category scores for your use.
- Is Claude Opus 4.7 better than Qwen3.8-Flash-Next for coding?
- Qwen3.8-Flash-Next scores higher in coding (71 vs 65 on the category index, where 50 is average).
- Is Claude Opus 4.7 better than Qwen3.8-Flash-Next for agentic tasks?
- Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher in agentic tasks (69 vs 49 on the category index, where 50 is average).
- Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.7 or Qwen3.8-Flash-Next?
- Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is cheaper: $0.230 against $10.00 per million tokens, blended at three input tokens per output token.
- Which is faster, Claude Opus 4.7 or Qwen3.8-Flash-Next?
- Qwen3.8-Flash-Next streams faster: 54 against 43 output tokens per second.
- Which has the larger context window?
- Claude Opus 4.7 accepts more context: 1M against 256k tokens.