ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

Claude Opus 4.7 vs Qwen3.8 Max

Qwen3.8 Max comes out ahead, 69 to 62 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.

  1. Anthropic

    Claude Opus 4.7

    Released Apr 16, 2026

    62/100
    • ECI156.4
    • Price$5.00 / $25.00
    • Context1M
    Full specs Remove Claude Opus 4.7
  2. Our pick

    Alibaba (Qwen)

    Qwen3.8 Max

    Released Aug 3, 2026

    69/100
    • ECI156.6
    • Price$2.00 / $6.00
    • Context1M
    Full specs Remove Qwen3.8 Max

  3. Add a model

    Make it a three-way comparison.

01 — Verdict

Qwen3.8 Max is our pick

Qwen3.8 Max is the better all-round choice, scoring 69/100 against Claude Opus 4.7 (62). It leads on price and inputs & features. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

  • CapabilityQwen3.8 MaxCapabilities Index (ECI): Qwen3.8 Max 156.6 · Claude Opus 4.7 156.4
  • Lowest priceQwen3.8 MaxQwen3.8 Max $3.00 · Claude Opus 4.7 $10.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextAbout the sameClaude Opus 4.7 1,000,000 · Qwen3.8 Max 1,000,000 tokens
  • Widest inputsQwen3.8 MaxClaude Opus 4.7: Text, Images, PDFs · Qwen3.8 Max: Text, Images, PDFs, Video
  • Self-hostingNo open weightsBoth are available only through APIs
How the score is built
MeasureWeightClaude Opus 4.7Qwen3.8 Max
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%8686
Price25%227
Inputs & features15%8090
Context window10%6060
Overall100%62/10069/100
02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.

Claude Opus 4.7 vs Qwen3.8 Max specifications side by side
SpecificationClaude Opus 4.7AnthropicQwen3.8 MaxAlibaba (Qwen)
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)156.4156.6 (best)
ECI rank#22 of 148#20 of 148 (best)
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions90.2%92.7% (best)
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics70.2%74.7% (best)
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics97.8%99.4% (best)
SWE-bench VerifiedFixing real GitHub issues83.5%—
SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions51.7% (best)45.8%
Price per million tokens
Input$5.00$2.00 (best)
Output$25.00$6.00 (best)
Cached input$0.50$0.25 (best)
Blended (3:1)$10.00$3.00 (best)
Long-context rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceOfficial Anthropic APIOfficial Alibaba API
Limits
Context window1,000,000 tokens1,000,000 tokens
Max output128,000 tokens131,072 tokens (best)
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesYesYes
PDFsYesYes
AudioNoNo
VideoNoYes
ReasoningYeslow · medium · high · xhigh · maxYeslow · medium · xhigh
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputYesYes
Availability
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
API model IDclaude-opus-4-7qwen3.8-max
API providers38 (best)25
ReleasedApr 16, 2026Aug 3, 2026
Knowledge cutoffJan 31, 2026—
03 — Cost

What would a month cost?

Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.

  • Claude Opus 4.7$100.00
  • Qwen3.8 Max$32.00
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Claude Opus 4.7 or Qwen3.8 Max?

Qwen3.8 Max is the better all-round choice, scoring 69/100 against Claude Opus 4.7 (62). It leads on price and inputs & features. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.7 or Qwen3.8 Max?

Qwen3.8 Max is cheaper at $2.00 input / $6.00 output per million tokens (official Alibaba API price). Claude Opus 4.7 costs $5.00 input / $25.00 output per million tokens (official Anthropic API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $3.00 per million tokens for Qwen3.8 Max versus $10.00 for Claude Opus 4.7 (3.3× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

Qwen3.8 Max scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): Qwen3.8 Max 156.6 (#20 of 148) and Claude Opus 4.7 156.4 (#22 of 148). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (154.5–158.8 vs 154.4–158.4), so treat the gap as small. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — Qwen3.8 Max 92.7%, Claude Opus 4.7 90.2%; FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 — Qwen3.8 Max 74.7%, Claude Opus 4.7 70.2%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — Qwen3.8 Max 99.4%, Claude Opus 4.7 97.8%; SimpleQA Verified — Claude Opus 4.7 51.7%, Qwen3.8 Max 45.8%.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Qwen3.8 Max yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, Qwen3.8 Max leads, which tends to carry over to coding, but test on your own codebase. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 4.7 and Qwen3.8 Max share the same 1,000,000-token context window. Maximum output per response: Claude Opus 4.7 up to 128,000, Qwen3.8 Max up to 131,072 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Claude Opus 4.7 accepts text, images and PDFs; Qwen3.8 Max accepts text, images, PDFs and video. Qwen3.8 Max handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

No. Claude Opus 4.7 and Qwen3.8 Max are proprietary and only available through APIs and apps.

Which is newer?

Qwen3.8 Max is the newest, released Aug 3, 2026. Claude Opus 4.7 came out Apr 16, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: Claude Opus 4.7 Jan 31, 2026.

How do you decide the winner?

Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Oct 4, 2026.

05 — Keep comparing

Related comparisons