Claude Opus 4 vs Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507
Claude Opus 4 and Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 are closely matched at 27.8 and 28.1 on the LLM Stats Score. Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 is 30.8x cheaper per token.
Anthropic · Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Updated for 2026
Which is better?
Claude Opus 4 and Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 are closely matched on the overall LLM Stats Score at 27.8 and 28.1.
The models split the 4 individual benchmarks reported for both models evenly.
On price, Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 is roughly 30.8x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.
Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 also accepts a larger context window (262,144 input tokens), making it the stronger choice for long documents and large codebases.
Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.
Choose Claude Opus 4
- you want predictable pricing at $15.00/M input and $75.00/M output
Choose Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507
- cost matters — it's about 30.8x cheaper per token
- you process long inputs — it offers a 262,144 token context window
- you want the most recent training data — it shipped Jul 2025
- you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune
At a glance
The differences that matter most.
Capability indexes
Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks
Individual benchmarks
9 reported for Claude Opus 4 · 25 for Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507
Claude Opus 4 outperforms in 2 benchmarks (TAU-bench Airline, TAU-bench Retail), while Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 is better at 2 benchmarks (AIME 2025, GPQA).
Both models are evenly matched across the benchmarks.
Human preference
Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores
Pricing Analysis
Price comparison per million tokens
For input processing, Claude Opus 4 ($15.00/1M tokens) is 50.0x more expensive than Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 ($0.30/1M tokens).
For output processing, Claude Opus 4 ($75.00/1M tokens) is 25.0x more expensive than Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 ($3.00/1M tokens).
In conclusion, Claude Opus 4 is more expensive than Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 accepts 262,144 input tokens compared to Claude Opus 4's 200,000 tokens. Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 can generate longer responses up to 131,072 tokens, while Claude Opus 4 is limited to 32,000 tokens.
Input capabilities
Documented input modalities across available providers
Claude Opus 4 supports multimodal inputs, whereas Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 does not.
Claude Opus 4 can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.
Claude Opus 4
Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507
License
Usage and distribution terms
Claude Opus 4 is licensed under a proprietary license, while Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 uses Apache 2.0.
License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.
Proprietary
Closed source
Apache 2.0
Open weights
Release Timeline
When each model was launched
Claude Opus 4 was released on 2025-05-22, while Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 was released on 2025-07-25.
Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 is 2 months newer than Claude Opus 4.
May 22, 2025
1.3 years ago
Jul 25, 2025
1.1 years ago
2mo newerKnowledge Cutoff
When training data ends
Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.
Unable to compare the recency of their training data.
Provider Availability
Claude Opus 4 is available from Anthropic, Bedrock, Google. Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 is available from Fireworks, Novita.
Claude Opus 4
Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507
Outputs Comparison
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against Claude Opus 4 and Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
FAQ
Common questions about Claude Opus 4 vs Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507.