Real head-to-head · same prompt, one shot
Claude Opus 5.5 vs Qwen 3.7
Anthropic's Opus 5.5 — benched on all 50 one-shot builds, every game playtested. vs Multilingual open-weights — strong on Chinese reasoning.
Head-to-head verdict: Claude Opus 5.5 wins 35–11 with 1 tie.
What I tested — same prompt, two models
I run the same fixed prompt set through every new model the day it drops — same string, one shot, single HTML file out — and I score the result 0–10 on whether it ran, how close it hit the brief, and how good it looked. Below is what came out when I gave the exact same prompts to Claude Opus 5.5 and Qwen 3.7, side by side, on 47 shared tasks inside the Agent Operating System.
Both models were given identical prompts inside the Agent Operating System — no help, no iteration, no "best of N" tricks. I run each prompt once, save the HTML file the model produces, and score it 0–10 on whether it ran, how close it hit the brief, and how good it looked. The scoring is mine. The verdicts below are pulled from my source comparison guides at agentos.guide where I publish every score and the reasoning behind it.
Claude Opus 5.5 · Benched on all 50 GoldieBench tasks via a Claude subscription: one-shot builds, real renders, pixel-diff playtests on every game, then vision-judged.
Qwen 3.7 · Wired alongside GLM-5.2 in Agent OS for open-weights agent loops where you want vendor diversity.
Side-by-side on 50 shared tasks
Click any cell to play that model's actual one-shot attempt. Medals are derived from my 0–10 scores per task (highest = 🥇, second = 🥈, third = 🥉).
Task ↓
Claude Opus 5.5
Qwen 3.7
Game
Game
Game
Game
Game
Game
Game
Game
Game
Game
Game
Game
Game
Game
Game
Game
Game
Game
Game
Game
Game
Game
Game
Page
Where Claude Opus 5.5 beat Qwen 3.7
The tasks where I gave Claude Opus 5.5 a higher 0–10 score on the same prompt — with the actual commentary from my source guides.
Raycaster
Game
Claude Opus 5.5 8.3
·
Qwen 3.7 4.0
(+4.3)
What I saw: Convincing Wolfenstein mood: textured stone corridors, red eagle banners, moss, torches, a cobbled floor, a guard, a treasure chalice and a first-person gun, with a cohesive HUD and minimap. It is a full three.js scene rather than a true raycaster, and the gun and hand are blocky boxes.
Reactiondiff
Sim
Claude Opus 5.5 7.9
·
Qwen 3.7 5.0
(+2.9)
What I saw: A feature-rich Gray-Scott lab (8 presets, palettes, a clickable f/k parameter map, 3D-light and mirror-brush modes, autopilot) with a tidy panel. The 256x144 simulation is upscaled into blurry, soft blobs, and the title and subtitle are crossed by the pattern, so it lacks the cri…
Webos
Page
Claude Opus 5.5 8.7
·
Qwen 3.7 6.0
(+2.7)
What I saw: Polished NovaOS desktop: working Paint, Notes with a sidebar and autosave, a Terminal with neofetch/ls, a menu bar with a live clock and CPU, a side launcher and a dock with running dots, all in one cohesive macOS-like style. Very strong, but not clearly above the field's 9.0 best.
Outrun
Game
Claude Opus 5.5 8.1
·
Qwen 3.7 5.5
(+2.6)
What I saw: Strong synthwave palette: striped sun, magenta grid, palms, SUNSET 1986 billboards, a modelled red car, traffic/hostiles and a tidy HUD. It uses a real 3D road rather than pseudo-3D, and the dim km/h label and chunky boxy cars keep it short of the top.
Synthwave
Visual
Claude Opus 5.5 8.6
·
Qwen 3.7 6.0
(+2.6)
What I saw: Nails the look: a striped setting sun, neon wireframe mountains, palm-lined highway, a car with neon tail-lights, a chrome title and synth music on M. It is close to the field best but not clearly above it. The car is a dark low-detail silhouette.
Where Qwen 3.7 beat Claude Opus 5.5
The tasks where I gave Qwen 3.7 a higher 0–10 score on the same prompt — with the actual commentary from my source guides.
Neonblaster
Game
Qwen 3.7 8.0
·
Claude Opus 5.5 5.8
(+2.2)
What I saw: 21KB · plays clean · webgl, audio, input
Arcade
Game
Qwen 3.7 8.0
·
Claude Opus 5.5 6.0
(+2.0)
What I saw: The closest test. All three shipped a real, juicy game. Opus's breakout had the most game-feel (particle bursts + live combo). Qwen's neon breakout is clean and vibrant. GLM went its own way with fullscreen asteroids. Genuinely hard to separate.
Twilightvale
Game
Qwen 3.7 7.5
·
Claude Opus 5.5 5.5
(+2.0)
What I saw: 25KB · plays clean · plain
Voxelcraft
Game
Qwen 3.7 7.5
·
Claude Opus 5.5 5.8
(+1.7)
What I saw: 14KB · plays clean · webgl, input
Dragonflight
Game
Qwen 3.7 7.5
·
Claude Opus 5.5 6.0
(+1.5)
What I saw: 13KB · plays clean · webgl, input
Strengths & weaknesses I logged
Claude Opus 5.5
Strengths
- Frontier-class coding + agentic reasoning (Claude 5 family)
- 1M-token context — reads an entire codebase in one call
- All 50 one-shot builds rendered with zero console errors; all 23 games passed the input playtest
Trade-offs
- Premium pricing ($4/$20 per M) — route the everyday 90% to cheaper lanes
- One-shot builds can still ship logic bugs (e.g. a doom kill counter that miscounts)
Qwen 3.7
Strengths
- Open weights, free for individuals — same model class as GLM-5.2
- Best-of-three on fluid simulation in the Goldie Bench bench
- Multilingual depth — Chinese reasoning especially strong
Trade-offs
- Only 5 tasks scored on the bench so far — small sample size
- Trails GLM-5.2 on cinematic visual builds at similar pricing
Pricing & context — the spec sheet
| Spec | Claude Opus 5.5 | Qwen 3.7 |
|---|---|---|
| Vendor | Anthropic | Alibaba |
| Context window | 1,000,000 tokens | 256,000 tokens |
| Price | $4 / $20 per M | Open weights · free for individuals |
| Pricing detail | Anthropic's Opus 5.5 — 1M-token context, listed at $4 input / $20 output per million tokens. Benched through a Claude subscription; game tasks use our skill-infused AAA build prompts. | Alibaba's open-weights release — downloadable from Hugging Face, runnable locally or via Alibaba Cloud's free tier for individuals. |
| Release | 2026-09 | 2026-06 |
| Bench coverage | 50/50 scored · avg 7.57/10 | 47/47 scored · avg 7.00/10 |
The verdict — which should you pick?
Across 47 scored shared tasks, Claude Opus 5.5 averaged 7.60/10, beating Qwen 3.7's 7.00/10 by 0.60 points. Pick Claude Opus 5.5 when the build has to ship on the first prompt and you can afford the trade-offs in the comparison below.
If you only run one of these inside your stack, the head-to-head average above is the call. If you can run both, my honest play is to wire Claude Opus 5.5 and Qwen 3.7 both into the Agent Operating System and dispatch each from the kanban by task type — hardest agentic builds → Claude Opus 5.5, open-weights alternative to glm-5.2 when you want a different model family → Qwen 3.7. That's the same setup I run for the 4,000+ founders inside the AI Profit Boardroom.
FAQ — Claude Opus 5.5 vs Qwen 3.7
Which is better, Claude Opus 5.5 or Qwen 3.7?
On Goldie Bench, Claude Opus 5.5 averages 7.60/10 across the shared tasks, with 0 gold, 0 silver, 1 bronze overall. Qwen 3.7 averages 7.00/10, with 0 gold, 0 silver, 0 bronze. Claude Opus 5.5 wins the head-to-head 35–11.
How much does Claude Opus 5.5 cost vs Qwen 3.7?
Claude Opus 5.5: Anthropic's Opus 5.5 — 1M-token context, listed at $4 input / $20 output per million tokens. Benched through a Claude subscription; game tasks use our skill-infused AAA build prompts. Qwen 3.7: Alibaba's open-weights release — downloadable from Hugging Face, runnable locally or via Alibaba Cloud's free tier for individuals.
What's the context window for Claude Opus 5.5 vs Qwen 3.7?
Claude Opus 5.5 has a 1,000,000 tokens context window. Qwen 3.7 has a 256,000 tokens context window.
When should I pick Claude Opus 5.5 over Qwen 3.7?
Pick Claude Opus 5.5 for: Hardest agentic builds; Whole-repo reasoning; Frontier one-shots. The trade-off is the weaknesses we logged on the bench: Premium pricing ($4/$20 per M) — route the everyday 90% to cheaper lanes; One-shot builds can still ship logic bugs (e.g. a doom kill counter that miscounts).
When should I pick Qwen 3.7 over Claude Opus 5.5?
Pick Qwen 3.7 for: Open-weights alternative to GLM-5.2 when you want a different model family; Multilingual workloads (Chinese, multi-script content); Fluid and particle simulations. The trade-off is the weaknesses we logged on the bench: Only 5 tasks scored on the bench so far — small sample size; Trails GLM-5.2 on cinematic visual builds at similar pricing.
How does Goldie Bench score Claude Opus 5.5 vs Qwen 3.7?
Every demo on this page was built by Julian Goldie inside the Agent Operating System — same fixed prompt for both models, one shot, single HTML file out. Each result gets a 0–10 score on whether it ran, how close it hit the brief, and how good it looked. The highest score on each task gets gold; second gets silver; third gets bronze. See methodology for full provenance.
Related comparisons
Other head-to-heads using the same scoring system:
Claude Opus 5.5 vs Fusion Qwen 3.7 vs Fusion Claude Opus 5.5 vs Claude Opus 5 Qwen 3.7 vs Claude Opus 5 Claude Opus 5.5 vs Hermes MoA Qwen 3.7 vs Hermes MoA Claude Opus 5.5 vs GPT-5.6 Sol Qwen 3.7 vs GPT-5.6 SolFull model pages: Claude Opus 5.5 · Qwen 3.7 · back to the leaderboard
The same stack Julian uses
Run this stack yourself.
Every demo on this bench was built inside the Agent Operating System — one prompt, one shot, single HTML file out. The Agent OS, the prompts, the templates, the weekly walkthroughs and 4,000+ founders shipping with it every day all live inside the AI Profit Boardroom.
4,000+founders
258documented wins
38countries
$59/momonthly