Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.5 vs Qwen2.5 32B Instruct

Claude Opus 4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.5 to 29.7 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5 32B Instruct costs 8.2× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 4 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.5 Anthropic

50.5

Rank #39 Confirmed

Qwen2.5 32B Instruct Alibaba (Qwen)

29.7

Rank #291 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 4 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.5 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 4.5 leads 56.4 to 24.9.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 86.1% for Claude Opus 4.5 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 $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.5.
  • Claude Opus 4.5 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 4.5Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
ProviderAnthropicAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index50.529.7
Released2025-11-012024-09
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window200K131K
Max output64K8K
Input $ / M tokens$5$0.70
Output $ / M tokens$25$2.80
Results tracked697

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), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 38.1 (#165)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
SWE-bench Verified76.7%—
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)76.8%—
LMArena WebDev1493—
SWE-bench Multilingual70.7%—
GSO26.5%—
WeirdML63.7%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—45%
LMArena Coding1504—
BigCodeBench Complete—52.3%
ALE-Bench1,025—
AlgoTune1.77—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.5: 47.2 (#11), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
Terminal-Bench63.1%—
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard77.5%—
GDPval45.5%—
Remote Labor Index3.8%—
τ²-bench Airline84%—
τ²-bench Banking24.7%—
τ²-bench Retail79.6%—
τ²-bench Telecom92.3%—
Cybench82%—
DeepResearch Bench54.8%—
OSWorld66.3%—
BALROG43.5%—
LMArena Search1180—
METR Time Horizons75%—
Vending-Bench 24,967—

Reasoning Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 42.5 (#43), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 18.5 (#262)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
Chess Puzzles12%0%
Epoch Capabilities Index150.1128.52
ARC-AGI-237.6%—
SimpleBench62%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark80.2%—
NYT Connections (extended)52.5%—
ARC-AGI-180%—
EnigmaEval11.9%—
EBR-Bench14.3%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1476—
Mystery Game Puzzles22%—
DTBench89.9%—
LMCA44.5%—
ForecastBench60.7—

Math Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 38.5 (#85), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 15.3 (#289)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202586.1%7.4%
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)34.4%—
FrontierMath Tier 44.9%—
ProofBench36%—
LMArena Math1463—
MATH Level 5—56.1%
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), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 24.9 (#259)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
GPQA Diamond86%46.1%
Humanity's Last Exam25.2%—
SimpleQA Verified45.7%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate10.9%—
LMArena Expert1488—

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.5: 31.1 (#99), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
GeoBench75%—
VPCT40%—
Furniture Assembly28.3%—
LMArena Document1462—

Multilingual Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.5: 54.5 (#45), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
LMArena Non-English1438—
LMArena Chinese1470—
LMArena French1471—
LMArena German1449—
LMArena Japanese1415—
LMArena Korean1424—
LMArena Russian1448—
LMArena Spanish1455—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.5: 77.7 (#20), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
LMArena Instruction Following1478—

Long Context Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.5: 46.4 (#21), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
CL-bench21.1%—
LMArena Longer Query1480—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.5: 68.2 (#28), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
LMArena Text1451—
LMArena Creative Writing1445—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1687—
LMArena Multi-Turn1466—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.5 better than Qwen2.5 32B Instruct?

Claude Opus 4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.5 to 29.7 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5 32B Instruct costs 8.2× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.5 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 4.5 lists at $5 and $25.

Is Claude Opus 4.5 or Qwen2.5 32B Instruct better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 55.4 versus 38.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 4.5 does, with 200K tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.5 and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct share?

4 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.5 has 69 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct has 7.

Related comparisons

Go deeper