Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.5 vs Qwen2.5-Coder-32B

Claude Opus 4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.5 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5-Coder-32B costs 13× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 14 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.5 Anthropic

50.5

Rank #47 Confirmed

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B Alibaba (Qwen)

33.4

Rank #245 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.5 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in coding, where Claude Opus 4.5 leads 54.8 to 22.6.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is SWE-bench Verified (bash only): 76.8% for Claude Opus 4.5 and 9% for Qwen2.5-Coder-32B.
  • Qwen2.5-Coder-32B is cheaper at $0.66 / $1 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.5.
  • Claude Opus 4.5 accepts more context: 200K tokens versus 33K.
  • Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.5Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
ProviderAnthropicAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index50.533.4
Released2025-11-012024-09-18
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window200K33K
Max output64K29K
Input $ / M tokens$5$0.66
Output $ / M tokens$25$1
Results tracked6931

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: 54.8 (#27), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 22.6 (#333)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)76.8%9%
LMArena Coding15041276
SWE-bench Verified76.7%—
Aider Polyglot—16.4%
LMArena WebDev1494—
SWE-bench Multilingual70.7%—
GSO26.5%—
WeirdML63.7%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—49%
LiveBench Coding—56.9%
BigCodeBench Complete—58%
ALE-Bench1,025—
AlgoTune1.77—
HumanEval+—87.2%
MBPP+—77%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.5: 47.3 (#12), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
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: 42.6 (#51), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 21.2 (#225)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Hard Prompts14761251
Epoch Capabilities Index150.09119.49
ARC-AGI-237.6%—
SimpleBench62%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark80.2%—
NYT Connections (extended)52.5%—
ARC-AGI-180%—
Chess Puzzles12%—
EnigmaEval11.9%—
EBR-Bench14.3%—
LiveBench Reasoning—42.1%
Mystery Game Puzzles22%—
DTBench89.9%—
LiveBench Data Analysis—49.9%
LMCA44.5%—
ForecastBench60.7—
HellaSwag—83%
LiveBench—46.2%
WinoGrande—80.8%

Math Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 38.6 (#132), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.3 (#204)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Math14631251
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)34.4%—
FrontierMath Tier 44.9%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202586.1%—
ProofBench36%—
LiveBench Math—46.6%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)20.7%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)4.2%—
GSM8K—93%

Knowledge Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 56.5 (#44), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.4 (#203)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Expert14871221
GPQA Diamond86%—
Humanity's Last Exam25.2%—
SimpleQA Verified45.7%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate10.9%—
ARC (AI2) Challenge—70.5%
MMLU—79.1%

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.5: 31.4 (#107), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: —

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

Multilingual Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 54.3 (#47), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 37.8 (#235)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Non-English14381205
LMArena Chinese14701222
LMArena Russian14471228
LMArena French1471—
LMArena German1449—
LMArena Japanese1416—
LMArena Korean1424—
LMArena Spanish1458—

Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 77.5 (#19), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 61.4 (#245)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Instruction Following14781223
LiveBench Instruction Following—58.7%

Long Context Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 46.5 (#22), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 38.0 (#208)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Longer Query14801251
CL-bench21.1%—

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 68.1 (#28), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 41.6 (#240)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Text14511230
LMArena Creative Writing14451174
LMArena Multi-Turn14661222
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1687—
LiveBench Language—23.3%

Frequently asked questions

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

Claude Opus 4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.5 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5-Coder-32B costs 13× 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-Coder-32B?

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B is cheaper. It lists at $0.66 per million input tokens and $1 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.5 lists at $5 and $25.

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

Claude Opus 4.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 54.8 versus 22.6 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 4.5 does, with 200K tokens against 33K.

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

14 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.5 has 69 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has 31.

Related comparisons

Go deeper