Claude Opus 5 vs Qwen3.7 Plus
Compare Claude Opus 5 and Qwen3.7 Plus side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, OCR, Open Prompt, Object Detection, and Classification.
Compare Claude Opus 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 vs Qwen3.7 Plus on Vision Evals
Claude Opus 5 scores higher on 4 of the five Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Reasoning, where Claude Opus 5 leads 71.5% to 39.7%.
Overall, Claude Opus 5 averages 70.9% (#18 of 61) against 58.9% (#35 of 61) for Qwen3.7 Plus.
Qwen3.7 Plus is both cheaper ($0.0008 vs $0.020 per sample) and faster (7.8s vs 8.2s per sample).
Claude Opus 5 vs Qwen3.7 Plus Comparison Table
Evals updated October 8, 2026Pricing updated October 9, 2026
| Property | Claude Opus 5 | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | Qwen |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | — |
| Release Date | Jul 2026 | Jun 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | — |
| Parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| License | Proprietary | Unknown |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $5.00 | $0.320 |
| Output $/1M | $25.00 | $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 |
| 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 | 70.9% | 58.9% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.020 | $0.0008 |
| Avg speed / sample | 8.21s | 7.77s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection | 54.4% | 60.1% |
| Counting | 70.3% | 50.0% |
| Identification | 90.6% | 84.4% |
| OCR (low) | 68.0% | 60.3% |
| by category |
|
|
| OCR (high) | 65.8% | 65.5% |
| by category |
|
|
| Reasoning (low) | 71.5% | 39.7% |
| Reasoning (high) | 74.2% | 68.2% |
Claude Opus 5 vs Qwen3.7 Plus: Overview
Claude Opus 5 is a large language model with multimodal vision capabilities developed by Anthropic, released on July 24, 2026 as the fourth model in the Claude 5 family. It sits in the Opus tier of Anthropic's lineup, positioned below the Mythos-class Fable 5 and Mythos 5 models, and is framed by Anthropic as the go-to model for most knowledge work and automation tasks. The model approaches Fable 5's capabilities at a lower cost. It becomes the default model on Claude Max and the strongest model available on Claude Pro. The model ships with a 1 million token context window and an adjustable "effort" parameter that allows users to trade reasoning depth for speed and token savings. Early enterprise customers reported that Opus 5 achieved comparable performance to Opus 4.8's maximum-reasoning mode while generating significantly fewer tokens on average, and demonstrated higher accuracy on financial modeling tasks with fewer tool calls and less time.
Claude Opus 5 supports multimodal inputs including images and text, and is designed for agentic workflows, coding, scientific research, and complex enterprise tasks. Anthropic reports the model scores 10.2 percentage points higher than Opus 4.8 on an internal chemistry benchmark, making it the most capable generally available model for scientific research in the Claude lineup. Cyber classifiers on Opus 5 are designed to intervene approximately 85 percent less often than those on Fable 5, with fallback to Opus 4.8 when a classifier triggers. The model does not retain user data for 30 days, unlike Fable 5. It is available across Anthropic's platforms including Claude Code and Claude Cowork, as well as cloud partners.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Claude Opus 5 performed better. It scores higher on 4 of the five vision tasks and averages 70.9% (#18 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 leads with 71.5% 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 $0.020. Claude Opus 5 is priced at $5.00 per 1M input tokens and $25.00 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.
Qwen3.7 Plus is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 7.8s per inference against 8.2s. 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.