Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
Nothing here. The model returned empty. We stared at it for a while.
Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 vs Claude Opus 4
Compare Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 by Qwen against Claude Opus 4 by Anthropic, context windows of 131K vs 200K, tested across 27 shared challenges. Updated April 2026.
Which is better, Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 or Claude Opus 4?
Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 and Claude Opus 4 are both competitive models. Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 costs $0.11/M input tokens vs $15/M for Claude Opus 4. Context windows: 131K vs 200K tokens. Compare their real outputs side by side below.
Key Differences Between Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 and Claude Opus 4
Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 is made by qwen while Claude Opus 4 is from anthropic. Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 has a 131K token context window compared to Claude Opus 4's 200K. On pricing, Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 costs $0.11/M input tokens vs $15/M for Claude Opus 4.
Our Verdict
Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
Claude Opus 4
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 125x 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 4.8x more emoji
Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
Claude Opus 4
56%Vocabulary64%
14wSentence Length62w
0.37Hedging0.52
5.7Bold4.4
4.0Lists9.1
0.54Emoji0.11
0.70Headings1.87
0.14Transitions0.27
Based on 22 + 16 text responses
vsAsk them anything yourself
279 AI models invented the same fake scientist.
We read every word. 250 models. 2.14 million words. This is what we found.
Free preview13 of 58 slides
FAQ