Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.1 vs Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
Claude Opus 4.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.0 to 30.1 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5 32B Instruct costs 24× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 4 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 4 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.1 scores higher in 4 categories and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct in 0 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Claude Opus 4.1 leads 42.0 to 24.9.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 68.9% for Claude Opus 4.1 and 7.4% for Qwen2.5 32B Instruct.
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct is cheaper at $0.70 / $2.80 per million input/output tokens, against $15 / $75 for Claude Opus 4.1.
- Claude Opus 4.1 accepts more context: 200K tokens versus 131K.
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 41.0 | 30.1 |
| Released | 2025-08-05 | 2024-09 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 200K | 131K |
| Max output | 32K | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $15 | $0.70 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $75 | $2.80 |
| Results tracked | 48 | 7 |
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), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 38.7 (#169)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | 73.3% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1390 | — |
| WeirdML | 45.9% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 45% |
| LMArena Coding | 1479 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 52.3% |
| ALE-Bench | 674.77 | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.34 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.1: 35.0 (#41), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 38% | — |
| GDPval | 43.6% | — |
| Cybench | 42% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 48.3% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1148 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 66.8% | — |
Reasoning Claude Opus 4.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 32.2 (#76), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 19.2 (#266)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 7% | 0% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 144.12 | 128.52 |
| SimpleBench | 60% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 7.2% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 7.9% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1443 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 21% | — |
| DTBench | 80% | — |
| LMCA | 37.1% | — |
| ForecastBench | 62 | — |
Math Claude Opus 4.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 22.3 (#277), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 16.2 (#296)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 68.9% | 7.4% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 12.6% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 2.4% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1431 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 56.1% |
| 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), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 24.9 (#266)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 77.3% | 46.1% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 11.5% | — |
| Confabulations | 17.1% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 11.8% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1439 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.1: 26.8 (#119), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| VPCT | 35% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.1: 52.0 (#95), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1405 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1427 | — |
| LMArena French | 1431 | — |
| LMArena German | 1413 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1378 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1380 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1422 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1448 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.1: 75.6 (#58), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1435 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.1: 44.5 (#63), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1455 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.1: 62.4 (#74), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1419 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1412 | — |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 84.7% | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1444 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4.1 better than Qwen2.5 32B Instruct?
Claude Opus 4.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.0 to 30.1 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5 32B Instruct costs 24× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.1 or Qwen2.5 32B Instruct?
Qwen2.5 32B Instruct is cheaper. It lists at $0.70 per million input tokens and $2.80 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.1 lists at $15 and $75.
Is Claude Opus 4.1 or Qwen2.5 32B Instruct better for coding?
Claude Opus 4.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 44.4 versus 38.7 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Claude Opus 4.1 does, with 200K tokens against 131K.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.1 and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct share?
4 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.1 has 48 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct has 7.