Claude Opus 5.5 (Low, Default Fallback) vs Qwen3.7 Plus
Which is better for the money: Claude Opus 5.5 (Low, Default Fallback) by Anthropic or Qwen3.7 Plus by Alibaba? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-26.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Claude Opus 5.5 (Low, Default Fallback) scores 17.1 points higher (42.3 vs 25.2) but costs 2.0× as much to run the benchmark ($860 vs $428; premium vs mid-range cost classes). Pick Claude Opus 5.5 (Low, Default Fallback) when the extra intelligence is worth the premium, otherwise Qwen3.7 Plus.
| Metric | Claude Opus 5.5 (Low, Default Fallback) | Qwen3.7 Plus | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 42.3 | 25.2 | −40.4% Qwen3.7 Plus is 40.4% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $860.33 | $427.73 | −50.3% Qwen3.7 Plus is 50.3% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 11.52s | 46.03s | +299.6% Qwen3.7 Plus is 299.6% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $4.00 / $20.0 | $0.40 / $1.60 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image, Video |
Qwen3.7 Plus vs Claude Opus 5.5 (Low, Default Fallback): 40.4% less intelligence, 50.3% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 299.6% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Claude Opus 5.5 (Low, Default Fallback) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Xhigh) scores 51.00 for $662.
- Qwen3.7 Plus is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Medium) scores 47.80 for $361.
Claude Opus 5.5 (Low, Default Fallback)Qwen3.7 PlusToday's Pareto frontierEvery other model
Matchup
Compare something else
Agents:
Accept: text/markdown or ?format=md returns this page as Markdown. JSON: /api/v1/compare/claude-opus-5-5-low/qwen3-7-plus · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/claude-opus-5-5-low/qwen3-7-plus?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill