Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.6 vs Qwen2.5-Coder-32B

Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.2 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 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 14 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.6 Anthropic

58.2

Rank #20 Confirmed

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

33.4

Rank #245 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.6 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 reasoning, where Claude Opus 4.6 leads 57.8 to 21.2.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is SWE-bench Verified (bash only): 75.6% for Claude Opus 4.6 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 4.6.
  • Claude Opus 4.6 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 33K.
  • Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.6Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
ProviderAnthropicAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index58.233.4
Released2026-02-042024-09-18
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M33K
Max output128K29K
Input $ / M tokens$5$0.66
Output $ / M tokens$25$1
Results tracked6831

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-Coder-32B: 22.6 (#333)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)75.6%9%
LMArena Coding15361276
SWE-bench Verified78.7%—
FrontierCode26.6%—
Aider Polyglot—16.4%
LMArena WebDev1547—
SWE-bench Multilingual72%—
GSO41.2%—
WeirdML78%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—49%
LiveBench Coding—56.9%
BigCodeBench Complete—58%
ALE-Bench996.5—
AlgoTune1.47—
HumanEval+—87.2%
MBPP+—77%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

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

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
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-Coder-32B: 21.2 (#225)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Hard Prompts15271251
Epoch Capabilities Index155.24119.49
ARC-AGI-269.2%—
SimpleBench67.6%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark83.6%—
NYT Connections (extended)92.1%—
ARC-AGI-194%—
Chess Puzzles17%—
EnigmaEval7.6%—
Thematic Generalization80.6%—
EBR-Bench12.7%—
LiveBench Reasoning—42.1%
Mystery Game Puzzles25%—
DTBench91.2%—
LiveBench Data Analysis—49.9%
LMCA55.8%—
ForecastBench60—
HellaSwag—83%
LiveBench—46.2%
WinoGrande—80.8%

Math Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 63.0 (#31), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.3 (#204)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Math15191251
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)66%—
FrontierMath Tier 426.8%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions78.5%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202594.4%—
ProofBench50%—
LiveBench Math—46.6%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)40.7%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)22.9%—
GSM8K—93%

Knowledge Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 61.9 (#26), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.4 (#203)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Expert15461221
GPQA Diamond90.5%—
Humanity's Last Exam34.4%—
SimpleQA Verified47%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate12.2%—
ARC (AI2) Challenge—70.5%
MMLU—79.1%

Multimodal Not comparable

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

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

Multilingual Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 57.9 (#6), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 37.8 (#235)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Non-English14891205
LMArena Chinese15511222
LMArena Russian14971228
LMArena French1513—
LMArena German1502—
LMArena Japanese1484—
LMArena Korean1464—
LMArena Spanish1510—

Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 79.5 (#4), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 61.4 (#245)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Instruction Following15231223
LiveBench Instruction Following—58.7%

Long Context Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 48.1 (#13), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 38.0 (#208)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Longer Query15201251
CL-bench20.7%—
CL-bench Life17%—

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 73.5 (#10), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 41.6 (#240)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Text15031230
LMArena Creative Writing15051174
LMArena Multi-Turn15131222
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1809—
EQ-Bench 41223—
LiveBench Language—23.3%

Frequently asked questions

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

Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.2 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 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

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

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

Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 57.2 versus 22.6 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 4.6 does, with 1M tokens against 33K.

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

14 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.6 has 68 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has 31.

Related comparisons

Go deeper