Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4 vs Qwen2.5-Coder-32B

Claude Opus 4 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.1 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5-Coder-32B costs 40× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 15 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4 Anthropic

43.1

Rank #100 Confirmed

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

33.4

Rank #245 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 15 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4 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 leads 47.2 to 22.6.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is SWE-bench Verified (bash only): 67.6% for Claude Opus 4 and 9% for Qwen2.5-Coder-32B.
  • Qwen2.5-Coder-32B is cheaper at $0.66 / $1 per million input/output tokens, against $15 / $75 for Claude Opus 4.
  • Claude Opus 4 accepts more context: 200K tokens versus 33K.
  • Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
ProviderAnthropicAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index43.133.4
Released2025-05-222024-09-18
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window200K33K
Max output32K29K
Input $ / M tokens$15$0.66
Output $ / M tokens$75$1
Results tracked5631

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

Category by category

Coding Claude Opus 4 leads

Claude Opus 4: 47.2 (#62), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 22.6 (#333)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)67.6%9%
Aider Polyglot72%16.4%
LMArena Coding14421276
SWE-bench Verified70.7%—
GSO6.9%—
WeirdML43.7%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—49%
LiveBench Coding—56.9%
BigCodeBench Complete—58%
AlgoTune1.33—
HumanEval+—87.2%
MBPP+—77%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Claude Opus 4: 34.8 (#42), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
Cybench38%—
DeepResearch Bench46.8%—
LMArena Search1127—
METR Time Horizons63.9%—

Reasoning Claude Opus 4 leads

Claude Opus 4: 27.3 (#121), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 21.2 (#225)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Hard Prompts13991251
Epoch Capabilities Index142.67119.49
ARC-AGI-28.6%—
SimpleBench58.8%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark74.3%—
ARC-AGI-135.7%—
CritPt0.3%—
EnigmaEval5.6%—
LiveBench Reasoning—42.1%
DTBench81.6%—
LiveBench Data Analysis—49.9%
LMCA37.4%—
ForecastBench61.1—
HellaSwag—83%
LiveBench—46.2%
WinoGrande—80.8%

Math Claude Opus 4 leads

Claude Opus 4: 42.0 (#86), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.3 (#204)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Math13901251
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202564.4%—
Omni-MATH61.6%—
LiveBench Math—46.6%
MATH Level 585%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)4.5%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)4.2%—
GSM8K—93%

Knowledge Claude Opus 4 leads

Claude Opus 4: 44.0 (#88), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.4 (#203)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Expert13861221
GPQA Diamond76.3%—
Humanity's Last Exam10.7%—
MMLU-Pro87.5%—
Confabulations15.9%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate12%—
GPQA (HELM)70.8%—
ARC (AI2) Challenge—70.5%
MMLU—79.1%

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Opus 4: 31.5 (#106), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Vision1192—
GeoBench49%—
VPCT38%—

Multilingual Claude Opus 4 leads

Claude Opus 4: 48.8 (#138), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 37.8 (#235)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Non-English13621205
LMArena Chinese13861222
LMArena Russian13921228
LMArena French1372—
LMArena German1391—
LMArena Japanese1331—
LMArena Korean1321—
LMArena Spanish1389—

Instruction Following Claude Opus 4 leads

Claude Opus 4: 77.1 (#28), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 61.4 (#245)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Instruction Following14061223
LiveBench Instruction Following—58.7%
IFEval91.8%—

Long Context Claude Opus 4 leads

Claude Opus 4: 39.6 (#172), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 38.0 (#208)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Longer Query14221251
Fiction.LiveBench61.1%—

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4 leads

Claude Opus 4: 61.2 (#89), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 41.6 (#240)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Text13771230
LMArena Creative Writing13871174
LMArena Multi-Turn13961222
Short-Story Creative Writing83.6%—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1580—
WildBench85.2%—
LiveBench Language—23.3%

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4 better than Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?

Claude Opus 4 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.1 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5-Coder-32B costs 40× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4 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 lists at $15 and $75.

Is Claude Opus 4 or Qwen2.5-Coder-32B better for coding?

Claude Opus 4 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 47.2 versus 22.6 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 4 does, with 200K tokens against 33K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4 and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B share?

15 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4 has 56 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has 31.

Related comparisons

Go deeper