Model Comparison

Claude Opus 4.1 vs Qwen2.5-Omni-7B

Claude Opus 4.1 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Want to compare interactively?Try the playground

Performance Benchmarks

Comparative analysis across standard metrics

1 benchmarks

Claude Opus 4.1 outperforms in 1 benchmarks (GPQA), while Qwen2.5-Omni-7B is better at 0 benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.1 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Thu Apr 30 2026 • llm-stats.com

Arena Performance

Human preference votes

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Cost data unavailable.

Lowest available price from all providers
Thu Apr 30 2026 • llm-stats.com
Anthropic
Claude Opus 4.1
Input tokens$15.00
Output tokens$75.00
Best providerAnthropic
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen2.5-Omni-7B
Input tokens$0.00
Output tokens$0.00
Best providerUnknown Organization
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Only Claude Opus 4.1 specifies input context (200,000 tokens). Only Claude Opus 4.1 specifies output context (32,000 tokens).

Anthropic
Claude Opus 4.1
Input200,000 tokens
Output32,000 tokens
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen2.5-Omni-7B
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Thu Apr 30 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input Capabilities

Supported data types and modalities

Both Claude Opus 4.1 and Qwen2.5-Omni-7B support multimodal inputs.

They are both capable of processing various types of data, offering versatility in application.

Claude Opus 4.1

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Qwen2.5-Omni-7B

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Claude Opus 4.1 is licensed under a proprietary license, while Qwen2.5-Omni-7B uses Apache 2.0.

License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.

Claude Opus 4.1

Proprietary

Closed source

Qwen2.5-Omni-7B

Apache 2.0

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Claude Opus 4.1 was released on 2025-08-05, while Qwen2.5-Omni-7B was released on 2025-03-27.

Claude Opus 4.1 is 4 months newer than Qwen2.5-Omni-7B.

Claude Opus 4.1

Aug 5, 2025

8 months ago

4mo newer
Qwen2.5-Omni-7B

Mar 27, 2025

1.1 years ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.

Unable to compare the recency of their training data.

No cutoff dates available

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Key Takeaways

Anthropic
Larger context window (200,000 tokens)
Higher GPQA score (80.9% vs 30.8%)
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team

Qwen2.5-Omni-7B

View details

Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team

Has open weights

Detailed Comparison

AI Model Comparison Table
Feature
Anthropic
Claude Opus 4.1
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen2.5-Omni-7B

FAQ

Common questions about Claude Opus 4.1 vs Qwen2.5-Omni-7B

Claude Opus 4.1 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks. Claude Opus 4.1 is made by Anthropic and Qwen2.5-Omni-7B is made by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their benchmark scores, pricing, and capabilities above.
Claude Opus 4.1 scores MMMLU: 89.5%, TAU-bench Retail: 82.4%, GPQA: 80.9%, AIME 2025: 78.0%, MMMU (validation): 77.1%. Qwen2.5-Omni-7B scores DocVQA: 95.2%, VocalSound: 93.9%, GSM8k: 88.7%, GiantSteps Tempo: 88.0%, ChartQA: 85.3%.
Claude Opus 4.1 supports 200K tokens and Qwen2.5-Omni-7B supports an unknown number of tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.
Key differences include licensing (Proprietary vs Apache 2.0). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.
Claude Opus 4.1 is developed by Anthropic and Qwen2.5-Omni-7B is developed by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team.