Claude Opus 4.7 vs Qwen 3 Max for coding
Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger coder of the two on benchmarks, but Qwen 3 Max can be the better pick when cost, speed, or context window matter more. Below: a side-by-side spec table and exactly when to pick each.
At a glance
| Spec | Claude Opus 4.7 | Qwen 3 Max |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Alibaba |
| Released | Nov 2025 | Oct 2025 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 72% | 68% |
| HumanEval | 94% | 92% |
| MMLU | 88% | 88% |
| Context window | 200K | 1M+ |
| Max output | 32K | 32K |
| Input price (per 1M) | $15 | $1.50 |
| Output price (per 1M) | $75 | $6 |
| Price tier | Premium | Mid |
| Speed | Slow/Reasoning | Medium |
| Hosting | Closed/API | Closed/API + Self-host |
| Modality | Multimodal (vision) | Multimodal (vision) |
| Knowledge cutoff | Jan 2026 | Sep 2025 |
Pick Claude Opus 4.7 if…
- It scores higher on SWE-bench Verified (72% vs 68%), the best proxy for real-world coding.
- It's tuned for complex refactors, agentic coding, hard debugging, deep reasoning.
Pick Qwen 3 Max if…
- It's cheaper (Mid tier vs Premium).
- It has a larger context window (1M+ vs 200K).
- It responds faster (Medium).
- It's tuned for long-context coding, multilingual codebases, China-region deployments.
Claude Opus 4.7 vs Qwen 3 Max: which is better for coding?
Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger coder of the two on benchmarks, but Qwen 3 Max can be the better pick when cost, speed, or context window matter more. See the full spec table for SWE-bench, HumanEval, MMLU, context window, and pricing on both. Benchmarks are a directional signal, not a guarantee for your codebase — the most reliable test is running both on a real task you care about.
Compare these head-to-head with live data, or build a full stack around your pick — Flowpicker shows compatibility and monthly cost.
Open the live comparison →More comparisons
See the full model leaderboard ranked by SWE-bench, HumanEval, and MMLU.