Pick Claude Opus 5.5 for performs at roughly claude fable 5.1's level on most work, at 40% lower typical workload cost than opus 5 or anthropic reports it surpasses fable 5.1 on agentic coding, knowledge work, computer use, visual chart recognition, and multidisciplinary reasoning. Pick Qwen 3.7 Max for long-horizon agentic coding (swe-bench pro 60.6, terminal-bench 2.0 69.7) or 1m-token long-document and full-codebase analysis. On a tight budget at scale, Qwen 3.7 Max is the value pick.
Claude Opus 5.5 (Anthropic, US) and Qwen 3.7 Max (Alibaba, China) line up two different AI ecosystems against each other — a comparison that is as much about cost philosophy and openness as raw capability. Claude Opus 5.5 is anthropic's September 22, 2026 update: Fable 5.1-level performance at 40% lower cost than Opus 5, with faster output and cheaper caching. Qwen 3.7 Max is alibaba's agent-first frontier model — a 1M-token context and long-horizon coding at about half the cost of US flagships. Their biggest split is price, and the breakdown below shows exactly how that plays out for your workload.
Key differences
Price: Qwen 3.7 Max is about 1.6× cheaper on input ($2.5/$7.5 per 1M tokens vs $4/$20 per 1M tokens) — modest, but it adds up at steady volume.
Context window: both advertise 1M tokens (~1,500 pages). Tie on paper — test on your own long inputs, since usable recall varies by model.
Recency: Claude Opus 5.5 is the newer model by about 4 months (released September 22, 2026), usually meaning fresher training data and capabilities.
Ecosystem: this is a US-vs-China matchup — they differ in pricing philosophy, data-residency options, and tooling ecosystems, not only benchmarks.
Specifications
Spec
Claude Opus 5.5
Qwen 3.7 Max
Provider
Anthropic (US)
Alibaba (China)
Released
September 22, 2026
May 20, 2026
Context window
1M tokens (~1,500 pages)
1M (~1,500 pages)
Price (in/out)
$4/$20 per 1M tokens
$2.5/$7.5 per 1M tokens
Open weight?
No — API only
No — API only
Modalities
text, image, code
text, code
SWE-Bench Verified
Not published
Not published
MRCR v2 @ 1M
Not published
Not published
Who wins what
Performs at roughly Claude Fable 5.1's level on most work, at 40% lower typical workload cost than Opus 5: Claude Opus 5.5 — Qwen 3.7 Max is comparatively weak here — trails GPT-5.5 and Claude Opus on the hardest one-shot reasoning
Anthropic reports it surpasses Fable 5.1 on agentic coding, knowledge work, computer use, visual chart recognition, and multidisciplinary reasoning: Claude Opus 5.5 — Anthropic's September 22, 2026 update: Fable 5.1-level performance at 40% lower cost than Opus 5, with faster output and cheaper caching — and it is the newer of the two.
Pricing cut to $4/$20 per million tokens (20% below Opus 5's $5/$25), cache reads down 60% to $0.20/MTok: Claude Opus 5.5 — Claude Opus 5.5 lists pricing cut to $4/$20 per million tokens (20% below Opus 5's $5/$25), cache reads down 60% to $0.20/MTok among its strengths; Qwen 3.7 Max does not.
Long-horizon agentic coding (SWE-Bench Pro 60.6, Terminal-Bench 2.0 69.7): Qwen 3.7 Max — Alibaba's agent-first frontier model — a 1M-token context and long-horizon coding at about half the cost of US flagships — and it runs cheaper at $2.5/$7.5 per 1M tokens.
1M-token long-document and full-codebase analysis: Qwen 3.7 Max — Claude Opus 5.5 is comparatively weak here — like Opus 5, the headline 1M-token context is not uniformly available across every platform and plan — some API paths default to a smaller window
MCP tool orchestration and multi-hour autonomous runs: Qwen 3.7 Max — Qwen 3.7 Max lists mCP tool orchestration and multi-hour autonomous runs among its strengths; Claude Opus 5.5 does not.
Lowest cost at scale: Qwen 3.7 Max — At $2.5/$7.5 per 1M tokens, it is the cheaper of the two — the gap dominates the bill on high-volume workloads.
Which should you pick?
A cost-sensitive startup shipping high volume: Qwen 3.7 Max — At $2.5/$7.5 per 1M tokens it undercuts Claude Opus 5.5, and on millions of tokens that margin decides the monthly bill.
Anyone whose priority is performs at roughly claude fable 5.1's level on most work, at 40% lower typical workload cost than opus 5: Claude Opus 5.5 — It is specifically built for that.
Anyone whose priority is long-horizon agentic coding (swe-bench pro 60.6, terminal-bench 2.0 69.7): Qwen 3.7 Max — That is its strongest area.
An enterprise with regional data-residency rules: Claude Opus 5.5 or Qwen 3.7 Max — Origin (US vs China) affects where data is processed and which compliance regime applies — check the provider's terms for your region.
Claude Opus 5.5: where it fits
Anthropic's September 22, 2026 update: Fable 5.1-level performance at 40% lower cost than Opus 5, with faster output and cheaper caching. Released September 22, 2026 by Anthropic, it is built for performs at roughly Claude Fable 5.1's level on most work, at 40% lower typical workload cost than Opus 5, anthropic reports it surpasses Fable 5.1 on agentic coding, knowledge work, computer use, visual chart recognition, and multidisciplinary reasoning, pricing cut to $4/$20 per million tokens (20% below Opus 5's $5/$25), cache reads down 60% to $0.20/MTok, and output speed increased over 30% versus Opus 5.
Its trade-offs are real: not a reasoning-ceiling upgrade over Fable 5.1 — pitched as matching its performance at lower cost, not beating it outright, like Opus 5, the headline 1M-token context is not uniformly available across every platform and plan — some API paths default to a smaller window, and first model in the 5.5 line; Anthropic has signaled Sonnet 5.5 and Haiku 5.5 are still weeks away, so the lower tiers of the family aren't out yet. At $4 in / $20 out per million tokens, it sits in the mid price band.
Qwen 3.7 Max: where it fits
Alibaba's agent-first frontier model — a 1M-token context and long-horizon coding at about half the cost of US flagships. Released May 20, 2026 by Alibaba, it is built for long-horizon agentic coding (SWE-Bench Pro 60.6, Terminal-Bench 2.0 69.7), 1M-token long-document and full-codebase analysis, mCP tool orchestration and multi-hour autonomous runs, and frontier intelligence at roughly half the price of US flagships.
Its trade-offs: text-only — no vision input (the Plus variant adds images), closed-weight, API-only — no self-hosting, trails GPT-5.5 and Claude Opus on the hardest one-shot reasoning, and chinese-jurisdiction data-residency considerations. At $2.5 in / $7.5 out per million tokens, it sits in the mid price band.
The bottom line for this matchup
This is less "which is smarter" and more "which ecosystem fits." Claude Opus 5.5 (US) and Qwen 3.7 Max (China) differ on pricing philosophy, data-residency, and tooling as much as on raw scores. Qwen 3.7 Max is the cheaper option, which matters at volume. The pragmatic move is to run one real task through both and judge the outputs against your own constraints — including where your data is allowed to be processed.
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 5.5 or Qwen 3.7 Max better for coding?
Public SWE-Bench figures are not available for either model, so the honest test is your own repository — run an identical real bug through both. By design, Claude Opus 5.5 leans toward performs at roughly claude fable 5.1's level on most work, at 40% lower typical workload cost than opus 5 while Qwen 3.7 Max leans toward long-horizon agentic coding (swe-bench pro 60.6, terminal-bench 2.0 69.7), and that positioning usually predicts which feels better on your codebase.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 5.5 or Qwen 3.7 Max?
Qwen 3.7 Max is cheaper — $4/$20 per 1M tokens vs $2.5/$7.5 per 1M tokens, roughly 1.6× apart on input.
Which has the bigger context window?
Both advertise 1M tokens (~1,500 pages). Remember advertised ≠ usable: recall typically degrades before the ceiling.
Can I use both Claude Opus 5.5 and Qwen 3.7 Max together?
Yes — a multi-model platform like LumiChats gives you Claude Opus 5.5, Qwen 3.7 Max and 40+ others under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day), so you can draft with one and cross-check with the other instead of buying two subscriptions.
Which is newer, Claude Opus 5.5 or Qwen 3.7 Max?
Claude Opus 5.5 — released September 22, 2026, about 4 months after Qwen 3.7 Max.
Claude Opus 5.5 vs Qwen 3.7 Max
Anthropic · US | Alibaba · China · Updated June 2026
Quick verdict
Pick Claude Opus 5.5 for performs at roughly claude fable 5.1's level on most work, at 40% lower typical workload cost than opus 5 or anthropic reports it surpasses fable 5.1 on agentic coding, knowledge work, computer use, visual chart recognition, and multidisciplinary reasoning. Pick Qwen 3.7 Max for long-horizon agentic coding (swe-bench pro 60.6, terminal-bench 2.0 69.7) or 1m-token long-document and full-codebase analysis. On a tight budget at scale, Qwen 3.7 Max is the value pick.
Claude Opus 5.5 (Anthropic, US) and Qwen 3.7 Max (Alibaba, China) line up two different AI ecosystems against each other — a comparison that is as much about cost philosophy and openness as raw capability. Claude Opus 5.5 is anthropic's September 22, 2026 update: Fable 5.1-level performance at 40% lower cost than Opus 5, with faster output and cheaper caching. Qwen 3.7 Max is alibaba's agent-first frontier model — a 1M-token context and long-horizon coding at about half the cost of US flagships. Their biggest split is price, and the breakdown below shows exactly how that plays out for your workload.
Key differences at a glance
▸Price: Qwen 3.7 Max is about 1.6× cheaper on input ($2.5/$7.5 per 1M tokens vs $4/$20 per 1M tokens) — modest, but it adds up at steady volume.
▸Context window: both advertise 1M tokens (~1,500 pages). Tie on paper — test on your own long inputs, since usable recall varies by model.
▸Recency: Claude Opus 5.5 is the newer model by about 4 months (released September 22, 2026), usually meaning fresher training data and capabilities.
▸Ecosystem: this is a US-vs-China matchup — they differ in pricing philosophy, data-residency options, and tooling ecosystems, not only benchmarks.
Side-by-side specs
Spec
Claude Opus 5.5
Qwen 3.7 Max
Provider
Anthropic (US)
Alibaba (China)
Released
September 22, 2026
May 20, 2026
Context window
1M tokens (~1,500 pages)
1M (~1,500 pages)
Price (in/out)
$4/$20 per 1M tokens
$2.5/$7.5 per 1M tokens
Open weight?
No — API only
No — API only
Modalities
text, image, code
text, code
SWE-Bench Verified
Not published
Not published
MRCR v2 @ 1M
Not published
Not published
Who wins what
Performs at roughly Claude Fable 5.1's level on most work, at 40% lower typical workload cost than Opus 5
Claude Opus 5.5
Qwen 3.7 Max is comparatively weak here — trails GPT-5.5 and Claude Opus on the hardest one-shot reasoning
Anthropic reports it surpasses Fable 5.1 on agentic coding, knowledge work, computer use, visual chart recognition, and multidisciplinary reasoning
Claude Opus 5.5
Anthropic's September 22, 2026 update: Fable 5.1-level performance at 40% lower cost than Opus 5, with faster output and cheaper caching — and it is the newer of the two.
Pricing cut to $4/$20 per million tokens (20% below Opus 5's $5/$25), cache reads down 60% to $0.20/MTok
Claude Opus 5.5
Claude Opus 5.5 lists pricing cut to $4/$20 per million tokens (20% below Opus 5's $5/$25), cache reads down 60% to $0.20/MTok among its strengths; Qwen 3.7 Max does not.
Long-horizon agentic coding (SWE-Bench Pro 60.6, Terminal-Bench 2.0 69.7)
Qwen 3.7 Max
Alibaba's agent-first frontier model — a 1M-token context and long-horizon coding at about half the cost of US flagships — and it runs cheaper at $2.5/$7.5 per 1M tokens.
1M-token long-document and full-codebase analysis
Qwen 3.7 Max
Claude Opus 5.5 is comparatively weak here — like Opus 5, the headline 1M-token context is not uniformly available across every platform and plan — some API paths default to a smaller window
MCP tool orchestration and multi-hour autonomous runs
Qwen 3.7 Max
Qwen 3.7 Max lists mCP tool orchestration and multi-hour autonomous runs among its strengths; Claude Opus 5.5 does not.
Lowest cost at scale
Qwen 3.7 Max
At $2.5/$7.5 per 1M tokens, it is the cheaper of the two — the gap dominates the bill on high-volume workloads.
Which should you pick?
A cost-sensitive startup shipping high volume
→ Qwen 3.7 Max
At $2.5/$7.5 per 1M tokens it undercuts Claude Opus 5.5, and on millions of tokens that margin decides the monthly bill.
Anyone whose priority is performs at roughly claude fable 5.1's level on most work, at 40% lower typical workload cost than opus 5
→ Claude Opus 5.5
It is specifically built for that.
Anyone whose priority is long-horizon agentic coding (swe-bench pro 60.6, terminal-bench 2.0 69.7)
→ Qwen 3.7 Max
That is its strongest area.
An enterprise with regional data-residency rules
→ Claude Opus 5.5 or Qwen 3.7 Max
Origin (US vs China) affects where data is processed and which compliance regime applies — check the provider's terms for your region.
Claude Opus 5.5: where it fits
Anthropic's September 22, 2026 update: Fable 5.1-level performance at 40% lower cost than Opus 5, with faster output and cheaper caching. Released September 22, 2026 by Anthropic, it is built for performs at roughly Claude Fable 5.1's level on most work, at 40% lower typical workload cost than Opus 5, anthropic reports it surpasses Fable 5.1 on agentic coding, knowledge work, computer use, visual chart recognition, and multidisciplinary reasoning, pricing cut to $4/$20 per million tokens (20% below Opus 5's $5/$25), cache reads down 60% to $0.20/MTok, and output speed increased over 30% versus Opus 5.
Its trade-offs are real: not a reasoning-ceiling upgrade over Fable 5.1 — pitched as matching its performance at lower cost, not beating it outright, like Opus 5, the headline 1M-token context is not uniformly available across every platform and plan — some API paths default to a smaller window, and first model in the 5.5 line; Anthropic has signaled Sonnet 5.5 and Haiku 5.5 are still weeks away, so the lower tiers of the family aren't out yet. At $4 in / $20 out per million tokens, it sits in the mid price band.
Qwen 3.7 Max: where it fits
Alibaba's agent-first frontier model — a 1M-token context and long-horizon coding at about half the cost of US flagships. Released May 20, 2026 by Alibaba, it is built for long-horizon agentic coding (SWE-Bench Pro 60.6, Terminal-Bench 2.0 69.7), 1M-token long-document and full-codebase analysis, mCP tool orchestration and multi-hour autonomous runs, and frontier intelligence at roughly half the price of US flagships.
Its trade-offs: text-only — no vision input (the Plus variant adds images), closed-weight, API-only — no self-hosting, trails GPT-5.5 and Claude Opus on the hardest one-shot reasoning, and chinese-jurisdiction data-residency considerations. At $2.5 in / $7.5 out per million tokens, it sits in the mid price band.
The bottom line for this matchup
This is less "which is smarter" and more "which ecosystem fits." Claude Opus 5.5 (US) and Qwen 3.7 Max (China) differ on pricing philosophy, data-residency, and tooling as much as on raw scores. Qwen 3.7 Max is the cheaper option, which matters at volume. The pragmatic move is to run one real task through both and judge the outputs against your own constraints — including where your data is allowed to be processed.
Want both Claude Opus 5.5 and Qwen 3.7 Max without two subscriptions? LumiChats gives you these plus 40+ models under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day) — draft with one, cross-check with the other.
Is Claude Opus 5.5 or Qwen 3.7 Max better for coding?
Public SWE-Bench figures are not available for either model, so the honest test is your own repository — run an identical real bug through both. By design, Claude Opus 5.5 leans toward performs at roughly claude fable 5.1's level on most work, at 40% lower typical workload cost than opus 5 while Qwen 3.7 Max leans toward long-horizon agentic coding (swe-bench pro 60.6, terminal-bench 2.0 69.7), and that positioning usually predicts which feels better on your codebase.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 5.5 or Qwen 3.7 Max?
Qwen 3.7 Max is cheaper — $4/$20 per 1M tokens vs $2.5/$7.5 per 1M tokens, roughly 1.6× apart on input.
Which has the bigger context window?
Both advertise 1M tokens (~1,500 pages). Remember advertised ≠ usable: recall typically degrades before the ceiling.
Can I use both Claude Opus 5.5 and Qwen 3.7 Max together?
Yes — a multi-model platform like LumiChats gives you Claude Opus 5.5, Qwen 3.7 Max and 40+ others under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day), so you can draft with one and cross-check with the other instead of buying two subscriptions.
Which is newer, Claude Opus 5.5 or Qwen 3.7 Max?
Claude Opus 5.5 — released September 22, 2026, about 4 months after Qwen 3.7 Max.
Specifications and benchmarks reflect publicly reported figures as of June 2026 and may change as providers release updates. Always verify on your own workload.