Model comparison

Claude 2.1 vs Qwen3 235B-A22B

Qwen3 235B-A22B is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.5 to 25.2 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 6 shared benchmarks.

Claude 2.1 Anthropic

25.2

Rank #345 Reported

Qwen3 235B-A22B Alibaba (Qwen)

43.5

Rank #91 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 6 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude 2.1 scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3 235B-A22B in 3 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3 235B-A22B leads 50.4 to 10.2.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 1.9% for Claude 2.1 and 86.7% for Qwen3 235B-A22B.
  • Qwen3 235B-A22B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude 2.1 and Qwen3 235B-A22B specifications
Claude 2.1Qwen3 235B-A22B
ProviderAnthropicAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index25.243.5
Released2023-11-212025-04
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window—131K
Max output—16K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.70
Output $ / M tokens—$2.80
Results tracked749

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3 235B-A22B leads

Claude 2.1: 26.2 (#327), Qwen3 235B-A22B: 44.3 (#75)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude 2.1Qwen3 235B-A22B
WeirdML7.1%41%
Aider Polyglot—59.6%
SciCode—42.4%
LMArena Coding—1445

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Claude 2.1: —, Qwen3 235B-A22B: 33.9 (#51)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude 2.1Qwen3 235B-A22B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—52.1%
Vending-Bench 2—-11.34

Reasoning Claude 2.1 leads

Claude 2.1: 21.4 (#221), Qwen3 235B-A22B: 15.7 (#311)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude 2.1Qwen3 235B-A22B
DTBench51%80.3%
Epoch Capabilities Index119.27143.85
ForecastBench54.259.7
ARC-AGI-2—1.3%
SimpleBench—31%
Kagi LLM Benchmark—69.4%
ARC-AGI-1—11%
CritPt—0%
Chess Puzzles—12%
LMArena Hard Prompts—1433
Mystery Game Puzzles—9%
LMCA—29.3%

Math Qwen3 235B-A22B leads

Claude 2.1: 10.2 (#315), Qwen3 235B-A22B: 50.4 (#57)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude 2.1Qwen3 235B-A22B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-20251.9%86.7%
Omni-MATH—71.8%
LMArena Math—1432
MATH Level 5—68.9%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—8.5%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)—0%

Knowledge Qwen3 235B-A22B leads

Claude 2.1: 15.4 (#292), Qwen3 235B-A22B: 49.6 (#73)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude 2.1Qwen3 235B-A22B
GPQA Diamond33%80.1%
SimpleQA Verified—40.4%
MMLU-Pro—84.4%
Confabulations—15.6%
Vectara Hallucination Rate—9.3%
GPQA (HELM)—72.7%
LMArena Expert—1463
MMLU73.5%—

Multilingual Not comparable

Claude 2.1: —, Qwen3 235B-A22B: 52.3 (#89)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude 2.1Qwen3 235B-A22B
LMArena Non-English—1409
LMArena Chinese—1481
LMArena French—1445
LMArena German—1433
LMArena Japanese—1399
LMArena Korean—1391
LMArena Russian—1411
LMArena Spanish—1430

Instruction Following Not comparable

Claude 2.1: —, Qwen3 235B-A22B: 72.6 (#136)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude 2.1Qwen3 235B-A22B
IFEval—83.5%
LMArena Instruction Following—1408

Long Context Not comparable

Claude 2.1: —, Qwen3 235B-A22B: 46.1 (#26)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude 2.1Qwen3 235B-A22B
Fiction.LiveBench—75%
LMArena Longer Query—1426

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Claude 2.1: —, Qwen3 235B-A22B: 59.6 (#108)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude 2.1Qwen3 235B-A22B
LMArena Text—1419
LMArena Creative Writing—1384
Short-Story Creative Writing—83%
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—1366
WildBench—86.6%
LMArena Multi-Turn—1432

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude 2.1 better than Qwen3 235B-A22B?

Qwen3 235B-A22B is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.5 to 25.2 on the Noometry Index.

Is Claude 2.1 or Qwen3 235B-A22B better for coding?

Qwen3 235B-A22B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 44.3 versus 26.2 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Claude 2.1 and Qwen3 235B-A22B share?

6 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude 2.1 has 7 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 235B-A22B has 49.

Related comparisons

Go deeper