Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.7 vs Qwen2.5-Coder-32B

Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5-Coder-32B costs 13× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.7 Anthropic

58.3

Rank #19 Confirmed

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B Alibaba (Qwen)

33.4

Rank #245 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in coding, where Claude Opus 4.7 leads 59.6 to 22.6.
  • Qwen2.5-Coder-32B is cheaper at $0.66 / $1 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.7.
  • Claude Opus 4.7 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 33K.
  • Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.7Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
ProviderAnthropicAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index58.333.4
Released2026-04-142024-09-18
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M33K
Max output128K29K
Input $ / M tokens$5$0.66
Output $ / M tokens$25$1
Results tracked6631

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 59.6 (#13), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 22.6 (#333)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Coding15181276
SWE-bench Verified83.5%—
FrontierCode38.5%—
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)—9%
Aider Polyglot—16.4%
LMArena WebDev1558—
SciCode54.5%—
GSO44.1%—
WeirdML76.4%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—49%
LiveBench Coding—56.9%
MirrorCode31.1%—
BigCodeBench Complete—58%
ALE-Bench1,323—
HumanEval+—87.2%
MBPP+—77%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.7: 47.9 (#10), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
Terminal-Bench80.2%—
APEX-Agents49.2%—
OSWorld 2.018.2%—
τ²-bench Banking40.2%—
PostTrainBench28.6%—
ExploitBench26.5%—
GBAEval43.8%—
GDP.pdf21%—
LMArena Search1233—
Vending-Bench 210,937—

Reasoning Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 53.8 (#29), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 21.2 (#225)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Hard Prompts15061251
Epoch Capabilities Index156.25119.49
ARC-AGI-275.8%—
SimpleBench61.7%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark80.7%—
NYT Connections (extended)39%—
ARC-AGI-193.5%—
CritPt12%—
Chess Puzzles30%—
Thematic Generalization72.8%—
EBR-Bench19%—
LiveBench Reasoning—42.1%
Mystery Game Puzzles28%—
DTBench94.7%—
LiveBench Data Analysis—49.9%
LMCA52.2%—
ForecastBench60.3—
HellaSwag—83%
LiveBench—46.2%
WinoGrande—80.8%

Math Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 66.7 (#26), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.3 (#204)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Math14991251
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)70.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 431.7%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions73.6%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202597.8%—
ProofBench54%—
LiveBench Math—46.6%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)43.8%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)22.9%—
GSM8K—93%

Knowledge Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 62.6 (#23), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.4 (#203)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Expert15211221
GPQA Diamond90.2%—
Humanity's Last Exam36.2%—
SimpleQA Verified51.7%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate12%—
ARC (AI2) Challenge—70.5%
MMLU—79.1%

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.7: 41.2 (#38), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Vision1316—
Blueprint-Bench 224.5%—
Furniture Assembly33.3%—
LMArena Document1495—

Multilingual Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 57.3 (#10), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 37.8 (#235)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Non-English14801205
LMArena Chinese15311222
LMArena Russian14941228
LMArena French1503—
LMArena German1495—
LMArena Japanese1472—
LMArena Korean1464—
LMArena Spanish1495—

Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 78.4 (#10), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 61.4 (#245)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Instruction Following14981223
LiveBench Instruction Following—58.7%

Long Context Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 46.2 (#25), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 38.0 (#208)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Longer Query15051251

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 75.1 (#8), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 41.6 (#240)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Text14901230
LMArena Creative Writing14861174
LMArena Multi-Turn15051222
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1914—
EQ-Bench 41311—
LiveBench Language—23.3%

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.7 better than Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?

Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5-Coder-32B costs 13× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.7 or Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B is cheaper. It lists at $0.66 per million input tokens and $1 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.7 lists at $5 and $25.

Is Claude Opus 4.7 or Qwen2.5-Coder-32B better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 59.6 versus 22.6 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 4.7 does, with 1M tokens against 33K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.7 and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B share?

13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.7 has 66 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has 31.

Related comparisons

Go deeper