Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.1 vs Qwen1.5-32B

Claude Opus 4.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.0 to 30.5 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.1 Anthropic

41.0

Rank #142 Confirmed

Qwen1.5-32B Alibaba (Qwen)

30.5

Rank #293 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.1 scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen1.5-32B in 1 category; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Claude Opus 4.1 leads 42.0 to 13.5.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 77.3% for Claude Opus 4.1 and 30.7% for Qwen1.5-32B.
  • Qwen1.5-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.1Qwen1.5-32B
ProviderAnthropicAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index41.030.5
Released2025-08-052024-02-04
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window200K—
Max output32K—
Input $ / M tokens$15—
Output $ / M tokens$75—
Results tracked4821

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

Category by category

Coding Claude Opus 4.1 leads

Claude Opus 4.1: 44.4 (#73), Qwen1.5-32B: 31.7 (#282)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Coding14791155
SWE-bench Verified73.3%—
LMArena WebDev1390—
WeirdML45.9%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—32.3%
BigCodeBench Complete—42%
ALE-Bench674.77—
AlgoTune1.34—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.1: 35.0 (#41), Qwen1.5-32B: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1Qwen1.5-32B
Terminal-Bench38%—
GDPval43.6%—
Cybench42%—
DeepResearch Bench48.3%—
LMArena Search1148—
METR Time Horizons66.8%—

Reasoning Claude Opus 4.1 leads

Claude Opus 4.1: 32.2 (#76), Qwen1.5-32B: 21.8 (#212)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Hard Prompts14431130
SimpleBench60%—
Chess Puzzles7%—
EnigmaEval7.2%—
EBR-Bench7.9%—
Mystery Game Puzzles21%—
DTBench80%—
LMCA37.1%—
Epoch Capabilities Index144.12—
ForecastBench62—

Math Qwen1.5-32B leads

Claude Opus 4.1: 22.3 (#277), Qwen1.5-32B: 33.0 (#207)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Math14311155
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)12.6%—
FrontierMath Tier 42.4%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202568.9%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)7.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)4.2%—

Knowledge Claude Opus 4.1 leads

Claude Opus 4.1: 42.0 (#101), Qwen1.5-32B: 13.5 (#296)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1Qwen1.5-32B
GPQA Diamond77.3%30.7%
LMArena Expert14391126
Humanity's Last Exam11.5%—
Confabulations17.1%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate11.8%—
MMLU—74.4%

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.1: 26.8 (#119), Qwen1.5-32B: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1Qwen1.5-32B
VPCT35%—

Multilingual Claude Opus 4.1 leads

Claude Opus 4.1: 52.0 (#95), Qwen1.5-32B: 31.4 (#259)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Non-English14051106
LMArena Chinese14271177
LMArena French14311101
LMArena German14131058
LMArena Japanese13781027
LMArena Korean13801008
LMArena Russian14221073
LMArena Spanish14481089

Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.1 leads

Claude Opus 4.1: 75.6 (#58), Qwen1.5-32B: 57.7 (#265)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Instruction Following14351116

Long Context Claude Opus 4.1 leads

Claude Opus 4.1: 44.5 (#63), Qwen1.5-32B: 34.7 (#246)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Longer Query14551146

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.1 leads

Claude Opus 4.1: 62.4 (#74), Qwen1.5-32B: 34.2 (#271)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Text14191137
LMArena Creative Writing14121083
LMArena Multi-Turn14441140
Short-Story Creative Writing84.7%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.1 better than Qwen1.5-32B?

Claude Opus 4.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.0 to 30.5 on the Noometry Index.

Is Claude Opus 4.1 or Qwen1.5-32B better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 44.4 versus 31.7 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.1 and Qwen1.5-32B share?

18 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.1 has 48 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-32B has 21.

Related comparisons

Go deeper