Model comparison
Claude 2.1 vs Qwen3 32B
Qwen3 32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.2 to 25.2 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 4 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 4 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude 2.1 scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3 32B in 3 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3 32B leads 39.7 to 10.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 1.9% for Claude 2.1 and 66.9% for Qwen3 32B.
- Qwen3 32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude 2.1 | Qwen3 32B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 25.2 | 39.2 |
| Released | 2023-11-21 | 2025-04 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | 131K |
| Max output | — | 16K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.70 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $2.80 |
| Results tracked | 7 | 26 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3 32B leads
Claude 2.1: 26.2 (#327), Qwen3 32B: 37.7 (#190)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Aider Polyglot | — | 40% |
| SciCode | — | 35.4% |
| WeirdML | 7.1% | — |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1358 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Qwen3 32B: 32.6 (#62)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 48.7% |
Reasoning Claude 2.1 leads
Claude 2.1: 21.4 (#221), Qwen3 32B: 20.2 (#241)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| DTBench | 51% | 67.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 119.27 | 138.51 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 54.9% |
| CritPt | — | 0.3% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 5% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1334 |
| LMCA | — | 17.3% |
| ForecastBench | 54.2 | — |
Math Qwen3 32B leads
Claude 2.1: 10.2 (#315), Qwen3 32B: 39.7 (#99)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 1.9% | 66.9% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1399 |
Knowledge Qwen3 32B leads
Claude 2.1: 15.4 (#292), Qwen3 32B: 40.0 (#125)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 33% | 65.7% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 5.9% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1362 |
| MMLU | 73.5% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Qwen3 32B: 45.6 (#167)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1317 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1357 |
| LMArena German | — | 1341 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1311 |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Qwen3 32B: 68.9 (#179)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1305 |
Long Context Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Qwen3 32B: 43.8 (#87)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 74.2% |
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1327 |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Qwen3 32B: 52.9 (#163)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1340 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1297 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1331 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude 2.1 better than Qwen3 32B?
Qwen3 32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.2 to 25.2 on the Noometry Index.
Is Claude 2.1 or Qwen3 32B better for coding?
Qwen3 32B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.7 versus 26.2 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Claude 2.1 and Qwen3 32B share?
4 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude 2.1 has 7 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 32B has 26.