Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.6 vs Qwen3 32B

Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.2 to 39.2 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3 32B 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 . 21 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.6 Anthropic

58.2

Rank #20 Confirmed

Qwen3 32B Alibaba (Qwen)

39.2

Rank #172 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 21 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher in 9 categories and Qwen3 32B in 0 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Opus 4.6 leads 57.8 to 20.2.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is LMCA: 55.8% for Claude Opus 4.6 and 17.3% for Qwen3 32B.
  • Qwen3 32B 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.
  • Qwen3 32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.6Qwen3 32B
ProviderAnthropicAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index58.239.2
Released2026-02-042025-04
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M131K
Max output128K16K
Input $ / M tokens$5$0.70
Output $ / M tokens$25$2.80
Results tracked6826

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), Qwen3 32B: 37.7 (#190)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen3 32B
LMArena Coding15361358
SWE-bench Verified78.7%—
FrontierCode26.6%—
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)75.6%—
Aider Polyglot—40%
LMArena WebDev1547—
SWE-bench Multilingual72%—
SciCode—35.4%
GSO41.2%—
WeirdML78%—
ALE-Bench996.5—
AlgoTune1.47—

Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 51.1 (#4), Qwen3 32B: 32.6 (#62)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen3 32B
Terminal-Bench79.8%—
APEX-Agents46.3%—
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—48.7%
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), Qwen3 32B: 20.2 (#241)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen3 32B
Kagi LLM Benchmark83.6%54.9%
Chess Puzzles17%5%
LMArena Hard Prompts15271334
DTBench91.2%67.5%
LMCA55.8%17.3%
Epoch Capabilities Index155.24138.51
ARC-AGI-269.2%—
SimpleBench67.6%—
NYT Connections (extended)92.1%—
ARC-AGI-194%—
CritPt—0.3%
EnigmaEval7.6%—
Thematic Generalization80.6%—
EBR-Bench12.7%—
Mystery Game Puzzles25%—
ForecastBench60—

Math Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 63.0 (#31), Qwen3 32B: 39.7 (#99)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen3 32B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202594.4%66.9%
LMArena Math15191399
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)66%—
FrontierMath Tier 426.8%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions78.5%—
ProofBench50%—
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), Qwen3 32B: 40.0 (#125)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen3 32B
GPQA Diamond90.5%65.7%
Vectara Hallucination Rate12.2%5.9%
LMArena Expert15461362
Humanity's Last Exam34.4%—
SimpleQA Verified47%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.6: 37.3 (#74), Qwen3 32B: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen3 32B
LMArena Vision1316—
Furniture Assembly28.3%—
LMArena Document1507—

Multilingual Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 57.9 (#6), Qwen3 32B: 45.6 (#167)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen3 32B
LMArena Non-English14891317
LMArena Chinese15511357
LMArena German15021341
LMArena Russian14971311
LMArena French1513—
LMArena Japanese1484—
LMArena Korean1464—
LMArena Spanish1510—

Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 79.5 (#4), Qwen3 32B: 68.9 (#179)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen3 32B
LMArena Instruction Following15231305

Long Context Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 48.1 (#13), Qwen3 32B: 43.8 (#87)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen3 32B
LMArena Longer Query15201327
Fiction.LiveBench—74.2%
CL-bench20.7%—
CL-bench Life17%—

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 73.5 (#10), Qwen3 32B: 52.9 (#163)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Qwen3 32B
LMArena Text15031340
LMArena Creative Writing15051297
LMArena Multi-Turn15131331
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1809—
EQ-Bench 41223—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.6 better than Qwen3 32B?

Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.2 to 39.2 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3 32B 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 Qwen3 32B?

Qwen3 32B is cheaper. It lists at $0.70 per million input tokens and $2.80 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.6 lists at $5 and $25.

Is Claude Opus 4.6 or Qwen3 32B better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 57.2 versus 37.7 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 Qwen3 32B share?

21 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.6 has 68 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 32B has 26.

Related comparisons

Go deeper