Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.5 vs Qwen1.5-32B
Claude Opus 4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.5 to 30.0 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.5 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen1.5-32B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Claude Opus 4.5 leads 56.4 to 13.5.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 86% for Claude Opus 4.5 and 30.7% for Qwen1.5-32B.
- Qwen1.5-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 4.5 | Qwen1.5-32B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 50.5 | 30.0 |
| Released | 2025-11-01 | 2024-02-04 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 200K | — |
| Max output | 64K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $5 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $25 | — |
| Results tracked | 69 | 21 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Opus 4.5 leads
Claude Opus 4.5: 55.4 (#21), Qwen1.5-32B: 31.1 (#278)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1504 | 1155 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 76.7% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 76.8% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1493 | — |
| SWE-bench Multilingual | 70.7% | — |
| GSO | 26.5% | — |
| WeirdML | 63.7% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 32.3% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 42% |
| ALE-Bench | 1,025 | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.77 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.5: 47.2 (#11), Qwen1.5-32B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 63.1% | — |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 77.5% | — |
| GDPval | 45.5% | — |
| Remote Labor Index | 3.8% | — |
| τ²-bench Airline | 84% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 24.7% | — |
| τ²-bench Retail | 79.6% | — |
| τ²-bench Telecom | 92.3% | — |
| Cybench | 82% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 54.8% | — |
| OSWorld | 66.3% | — |
| BALROG | 43.5% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1180 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 75% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 4,967 | — |
Reasoning Claude Opus 4.5 leads
Claude Opus 4.5: 42.5 (#43), Qwen1.5-32B: 20.9 (#210)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1476 | 1131 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 37.6% | — |
| SimpleBench | 62% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 80.2% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 52.5% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 80% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 12% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 11.9% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 14.3% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 22% | — |
| DTBench | 89.9% | — |
| LMCA | 44.5% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 150.1 | — |
| ForecastBench | 60.7 | — |
Math Claude Opus 4.5 leads
Claude Opus 4.5: 38.5 (#85), Qwen1.5-32B: 30.5 (#207)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1463 | 1155 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 34.4% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 4.9% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 86.1% | — |
| ProofBench | 36% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 20.7% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | — |
Knowledge Claude Opus 4.5 leads
Claude Opus 4.5: 56.4 (#38), Qwen1.5-32B: 13.5 (#291)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 86% | 30.7% |
| LMArena Expert | 1488 | 1126 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 25.2% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 45.7% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 10.9% | — |
| MMLU | — | 74.4% |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.5: 31.1 (#99), Qwen1.5-32B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| GeoBench | 75% | — |
| VPCT | 40% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 28.3% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1462 | — |
Multilingual Claude Opus 4.5 leads
Claude Opus 4.5: 54.5 (#45), Qwen1.5-32B: 31.6 (#254)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1438 | 1106 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1470 | 1176 |
| LMArena French | 1471 | 1100 |
| LMArena German | 1449 | 1058 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1415 | 1027 |
| LMArena Korean | 1424 | 1007 |
| LMArena Russian | 1448 | 1073 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1455 | 1089 |
Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.5 leads
Claude Opus 4.5: 77.7 (#20), Qwen1.5-32B: 58.0 (#260)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1478 | 1116 |
Long Context Claude Opus 4.5 leads
Claude Opus 4.5: 46.4 (#21), Qwen1.5-32B: 34.7 (#241)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1480 | 1146 |
| CL-bench | 21.1% | — |
Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.5 leads
Claude Opus 4.5: 68.2 (#28), Qwen1.5-32B: 34.4 (#266)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1451 | 1137 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1445 | 1083 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1466 | 1140 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1687 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4.5 better than Qwen1.5-32B?
Claude Opus 4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.5 to 30.0 on the Noometry Index.
Is Claude Opus 4.5 or Qwen1.5-32B better for coding?
Claude Opus 4.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 55.4 versus 31.1 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.5 and Qwen1.5-32B share?
18 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.5 has 69 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-32B has 21.