Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.5 vs Qwen3 32B

Claude Opus 4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.5 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3 32B 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 . 22 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.5 Anthropic

50.5

Rank #39 Confirmed

Qwen3 32B Alibaba (Qwen)

38.8

Rank #166 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 22 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.5 scores higher in 9 categories and Qwen3 32B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Opus 4.5 leads 42.5 to 19.6.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard: 77.5% for Claude Opus 4.5 and 48.7% for Qwen3 32B.
  • Qwen3 32B 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.
  • Qwen3 32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.5Qwen3 32B
ProviderAnthropicAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index50.538.8
Released2025-11-012025-04
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window200K131K
Max output64K16K
Input $ / M tokens$5$0.70
Output $ / M tokens$25$2.80
Results tracked6926

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), Qwen3 32B: 37.3 (#184)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen3 32B
LMArena Coding15041358
SWE-bench Verified76.7%—
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)76.8%—
Aider Polyglot—40%
LMArena WebDev1493—
SWE-bench Multilingual70.7%—
SciCode—35.4%
GSO26.5%—
WeirdML63.7%—
ALE-Bench1,025—
AlgoTune1.77—

Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 47.2 (#11), Qwen3 32B: 32.3 (#58)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen3 32B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard77.5%48.7%
Terminal-Bench63.1%—
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), Qwen3 32B: 19.6 (#233)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen3 32B
Kagi LLM Benchmark80.2%54.9%
Chess Puzzles12%5%
LMArena Hard Prompts14761335
DTBench89.9%67.5%
LMCA44.5%17.3%
Epoch Capabilities Index150.1138.51
ARC-AGI-237.6%—
SimpleBench62%—
NYT Connections (extended)52.5%—
ARC-AGI-180%—
CritPt—0.3%
EnigmaEval11.9%—
EBR-Bench14.3%—
Mystery Game Puzzles22%—
ForecastBench60.7—

Math Too close to call

Claude Opus 4.5: 38.5 (#85), Qwen3 32B: 37.9 (#89)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen3 32B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202586.1%66.9%
LMArena Math14631399
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)34.4%—
FrontierMath Tier 44.9%—
ProofBench36%—
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), Qwen3 32B: 40.0 (#112)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen3 32B
GPQA Diamond86%65.7%
Vectara Hallucination Rate10.9%5.9%
LMArena Expert14881362
Humanity's Last Exam25.2%—
SimpleQA Verified45.7%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.5: 31.1 (#99), Qwen3 32B: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen3 32B
GeoBench75%—
VPCT40%—
Furniture Assembly28.3%—
LMArena Document1462—

Multilingual Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 54.5 (#45), Qwen3 32B: 45.8 (#162)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen3 32B
LMArena Non-English14381317
LMArena Chinese14701357
LMArena German14491341
LMArena Russian14481311
LMArena French1471—
LMArena Japanese1415—
LMArena Korean1424—
LMArena Spanish1455—

Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 77.7 (#20), Qwen3 32B: 69.1 (#174)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen3 32B
LMArena Instruction Following14781305

Long Context Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 46.4 (#21), Qwen3 32B: 43.7 (#83)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen3 32B
LMArena Longer Query14801327
Fiction.LiveBench—74.2%
CL-bench21.1%—

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 68.2 (#28), Qwen3 32B: 53.1 (#158)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Qwen3 32B
LMArena Text14511340
LMArena Creative Writing14451297
LMArena Multi-Turn14661331
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1687—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.5 better than Qwen3 32B?

Claude Opus 4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.5 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3 32B 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 Qwen3 32B?

Qwen3 32B 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 Qwen3 32B better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 55.4 versus 37.3 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 Qwen3 32B share?

22 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.5 has 69 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 32B has 26.

Related comparisons

Go deeper