Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.6 vs Qwen2.5 32B Instruct

Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.2 to 30.1 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5 32B Instruct costs 8.2× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 4 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.6 Anthropic

58.2

Rank #20 Confirmed

Qwen2.5 32B Instruct Alibaba (Qwen)

30.1

Rank #297 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 4 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.6 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 math, where Claude Opus 4.6 leads 63.0 to 16.2.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 94.4% for Claude Opus 4.6 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 4.6.
  • Claude Opus 4.6 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 131K.
  • Qwen2.5 32B Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.6Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
ProviderAnthropicAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index58.230.1
Released2026-02-042024-09
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M131K
Max output128K8K
Input $ / M tokens$5$0.70
Output $ / M tokens$25$2.80
Results tracked687

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 57.2 (#20), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 38.7 (#169)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
SWE-bench Verified78.7%—
FrontierCode26.6%—
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)75.6%—
LMArena WebDev1547—
SWE-bench Multilingual72%—
GSO41.2%—
WeirdML78%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—45%
LMArena Coding1536—
BigCodeBench Complete—52.3%
ALE-Bench996.5—
AlgoTune1.47—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.6: 51.1 (#4), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
Terminal-Bench79.8%—
APEX-Agents46.3%—
Remote Labor Index4.2%—
τ²-bench Banking27.3%—
Cybench93%—
DeepResearch Bench55.3%—
GBAEval44.1%—
LMArena Search1253—
METR Time Horizons78.9%—
Vending-Bench 28,018—

Reasoning Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 57.8 (#23), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 19.2 (#266)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
Chess Puzzles17%0%
Epoch Capabilities Index155.24128.52
ARC-AGI-269.2%—
SimpleBench67.6%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark83.6%—
NYT Connections (extended)92.1%—
ARC-AGI-194%—
EnigmaEval7.6%—
Thematic Generalization80.6%—
EBR-Bench12.7%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1527—
Mystery Game Puzzles25%—
DTBench91.2%—
LMCA55.8%—
ForecastBench60—

Math Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 63.0 (#31), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 16.2 (#296)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202594.4%7.4%
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)66%—
FrontierMath Tier 426.8%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions78.5%—
ProofBench50%—
LMArena Math1519—
MATH Level 5—56.1%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)40.7%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)22.9%—

Knowledge Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 61.9 (#26), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 24.9 (#266)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
GPQA Diamond90.5%46.1%
Humanity's Last Exam34.4%—
SimpleQA Verified47%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate12.2%—
LMArena Expert1546—

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.6: 37.3 (#74), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
LMArena Vision1316—
Furniture Assembly28.3%—
LMArena Document1507—

Multilingual Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.6: 57.9 (#6), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
LMArena Non-English1489—
LMArena Chinese1551—
LMArena French1513—
LMArena German1502—
LMArena Japanese1484—
LMArena Korean1464—
LMArena Russian1497—
LMArena Spanish1510—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.6: 79.5 (#4), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
LMArena Instruction Following1523—

Long Context Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.6: 48.1 (#13), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
CL-bench20.7%—
CL-bench Life17%—
LMArena Longer Query1520—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.6: 73.5 (#10), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
LMArena Text1503—
LMArena Creative Writing1505—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1809—
EQ-Bench 41223—
LMArena Multi-Turn1513—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.6 better than Qwen2.5 32B Instruct?

Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.2 to 30.1 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5 32B Instruct costs 8.2× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.6 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 4.6 lists at $5 and $25.

Is Claude Opus 4.6 or Qwen2.5 32B Instruct better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 57.2 versus 38.7 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 4.6 does, with 1M tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.6 and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct share?

4 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.6 has 68 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct has 7.

Related comparisons

Go deeper