Claude Opus 5.5 vs Qwen3.7 Plus
Compare Claude Opus 5.5 and Qwen3.7 Plus side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, OCR, Classification, Object Detection, and Open Prompt.
Compare Claude Opus 5.5 vs Qwen3.7 Plus live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
Detect and compare bounding boxes across models on the same image.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Claude Opus 5.5 vs Qwen3.7 Plus on Vision Evals
Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher on all five Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Reasoning, where Claude Opus 5.5 leads 83.0% to 39.7%.
Overall, Claude Opus 5.5 averages 82.0% (#2 of 61) against 58.9% (#35 of 61) for Qwen3.7 Plus.
Qwen3.7 Plus is cheaper ($0.0008 vs $0.015 per sample), while Claude Opus 5.5 is faster (7.6s vs 7.8s per sample).
Claude Opus 5.5 vs Qwen3.7 Plus Comparison Table
Evals updated October 8, 2026Pricing updated October 9, 2026
| Property | Claude Opus 5.5 | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | Qwen |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | — |
| Release Date | Sep 2026 | Jun 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | — |
| Parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| License | Proprietary | Unknown |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $4.00 | $0.320 |
| Output $/1M | $20.00 | $1.28 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | Supported | Not listed |
| Document Question Answering | Supported | Not listed |
| Image Tagging | Supported | Not listed |
| Multi-Label Classification | Supported | Not listed |
| Vision Language | Supported | Not listed |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | Supported | Not listed |
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | Supported | Not listed |
| Multimodal Vision | Supported | Not listed |
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 82.0% | 58.9% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.015 | $0.0008 |
| Avg speed / sample | 7.63s | 7.77s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 74.5% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.0 to 75.0 | 60.1% |
| Object Detection (high) | 76.0% ±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 74.7 to 77.0 | – |
| Counting (low) | 80.6% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 82.4 | 50.0% |
| Counting (high) | 82.0% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.7 to 83.8 | – |
| Identification (low) | 93.8% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 93.8 | 84.4% |
| Identification (high) | 95.8% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 96.9 | – |
| OCR (low) | 78.3% | 60.3% |
| by category |
|
|
| OCR (high) | 79.9% | 65.5% |
| by category |
|
|
| Reasoning (low) | 83.0% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.1 to 84.1 | 39.7% |
| Reasoning (high) | 85.9% ±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.8 to 88.1 | 68.2% |
Claude Opus 5.5 vs Qwen3.7 Plus: Overview
Claude Opus 5.5 is a proprietary multimodal reasoning model from Anthropic and the first entry in the Claude 5.5 family. It accepts interleaved text and image input and returns text, with a one million token context window and up to 128,000 output tokens per response. Adaptive thinking is always enabled on this model and cannot be disabled; thinking depth is instead governed by an effort parameter with five levels, where medium is the default, a change from the high default used by Claude Opus 5 and earlier Opus models. Anthropic reports a knowledge cutoff of June 2026.
On the visual side, Anthropic characterizes Opus 5.5 as its strongest Opus release for vision and computer use, describing improved reading of dense documents, charts, screenshots, and diagrams for document extraction and visual analysis tasks. Published results include 89.0% on Chartography with tools and 81.8% on OSWorld 2.0 under partial credit scoring, alongside 48.7% under strict scoring reported in the system card. The accompanying system card states that Opus 5.5 scored higher than Opus 5 on every evaluation in its capability summary, with the largest gains concentrated in agentic coding, visual reasoning, computer use, and long-horizon knowledge work. The model ships with safety classifiers covering biology and cybersecurity that can route blocked requests to earlier Claude models.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Claude Opus 5.5 performed better. It scores higher on all five vision tasks and averages 82.0% (#2 of 61) against 58.9% (#35 of 61) for Qwen3.7 Plus. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.
Yes. On the Vision Evals Reasoning benchmark at low effort, Claude Opus 5.5 leads with 83.0% against 39.7%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Qwen3.7 Plus is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0008 per sample against $0.015. Claude Opus 5.5 is priced at $4.00 per 1M input tokens and $20.00 per 1M output; Qwen3.7 Plus is priced at $0.32 per 1M input tokens and $1.28 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
Claude Opus 5.5 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 7.6s per inference against 7.8s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.
Yes. The comparison demo on this page runs both models on the same image side by side for image captioning and OCR in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.