Claude 3.7 Sonnet
Nothing here. The model returned empty. We stared at it for a while.
Claude 3.7 Sonnet vs Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
Compare Claude 3.7 Sonnet by Anthropic against Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 by Qwen, context windows of 200K vs 131K, tested across 40 shared challenges. Updated April 2026.
Which is better, Claude 3.7 Sonnet or Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507?
Claude 3.7 Sonnet and Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 are both competitive models. Claude 3.7 Sonnet costs $3/M input tokens vs $0.11/M for Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507. Context windows: 200K vs 131K tokens. Compare their real outputs side by side below.
Key Differences Between Claude 3.7 Sonnet and Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
Claude 3.7 Sonnet is made by anthropic while Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 is from qwen. Claude 3.7 Sonnet has a 200K token context window compared to Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507's 131K. On pricing, Claude 3.7 Sonnet costs $3/M input tokens vs $0.11/M for Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507.
Our Verdict
Claude 3.7 Sonnet
Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
No community votes yet. On paper, these are closely matched - try both with your actual task to see which fits your workflow.
Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 is 25x cheaper per token — worth considering if cost matters.
Too close to call
Writing DNA
Style Comparison
Similarity
90%
Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 uses 53.9x more emoji
Claude 3.7 Sonnet
Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
62%Vocabulary56%
35wSentence Length14w
0.99Hedging0.37
1.2Bold5.7
4.3Lists4.0
0.00Emoji0.54
1.78Headings0.70
0.23Transitions0.14
Based on 13 + 22 text responses
vsAsk them anything yourself
FAQ