Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.6 vs QwQ-32B
Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 39.4 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 23 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 23 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher in 7 categories and QwQ-32B in 1 category; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Opus 4.6 leads 57.7 to 22.9.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 94.4% for Claude Opus 4.6 and 59.2% for QwQ-32B.
- QwQ-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 4.6 | QwQ-32B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 58.3 | 39.4 |
| Released | 2026-02-04 | 2024-11-28 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1M | — |
| Max output | 128K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $5 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $25 | — |
| Results tracked | 68 | 36 |
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: 57.7 (#15), QwQ-32B: 34.9 (#220)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1535 | 1333 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 78.7% | — |
| FrontierCode | 26.6% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 75.6% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 20.9% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1546 | — |
| SWE-bench Multilingual | 72% | — |
| GSO | 41.2% | — |
| WeirdML | 78% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 44.6% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 72.2% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 54.4% |
| ALE-Bench | 996.5 | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.47 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.6: 51.0 (#4), QwQ-32B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 79.8% | — |
| APEX-Agents | 46.3% | — |
| Remote Labor Index | 4.2% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 27.3% | — |
| Cybench | 93% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 55.3% | — |
| GBAEval | 44.1% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1253 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 78.9% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 8,018 | — |
Reasoning Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 57.7 (#21), QwQ-32B: 22.9 (#171)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 17% | 5% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1527 | 1326 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 155.36 | 137.6 |
| ForecastBench | 60 | 58.3 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 69.2% | — |
| SimpleBench | 67.6% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 83.6% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 92.1% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 94% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 7.6% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 80.6% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 12.7% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 83.5% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 25% | — |
| DTBench | 91.2% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 65% |
| LMCA | 55.8% | — |
| LiveBench | — | 72% |
Math Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 62.7 (#25), QwQ-32B: 36.2 (#123)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 94.4% | 59.2% |
| LMArena Math | 1517 | 1359 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 66% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 26.8% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 78.5% | — |
| ProofBench | 50% | — |
| LiveBench Math | — | 77.8% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 40.7% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 22.9% | — |
Knowledge Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 61.8 (#23), QwQ-32B: 37.2 (#150)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 90.5% | 65.3% |
| LMArena Expert | 1546 | 1323 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 34.4% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 47% | — |
| Confabulations | — | 15.6% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12.2% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.6: 37.0 (#67), QwQ-32B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1316 | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 28.3% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1507 | — |
Multilingual Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 58.2 (#4), QwQ-32B: 45.0 (#171)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1490 | 1306 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1551 | 1378 |
| LMArena French | 1513 | 1337 |
| LMArena German | 1504 | 1313 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1484 | 1263 |
| LMArena Korean | 1465 | 1278 |
| LMArena Russian | 1497 | 1297 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1512 | 1353 |
Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 79.7 (#3), QwQ-32B: 72.8 (#131)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1523 | 1297 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 81.8% |
Long Context Too close to call
Claude Opus 4.6: 48.1 (#13), QwQ-32B: 49.0 (#11)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1520 | 1308 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 83.3% |
| CL-bench | 20.7% | — |
| CL-bench Life | 17% | — |
Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 73.7 (#9), QwQ-32B: 50.9 (#175)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1504 | 1329 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1506 | 1288 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1809 | 1257 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1514 | 1314 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 80.2% |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1223 | — |
| LiveBench Language | — | 51.4% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4.6 better than QwQ-32B?
Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 39.4 on the Noometry Index.
Is Claude Opus 4.6 or QwQ-32B better for coding?
Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 57.7 versus 34.9 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.6 and QwQ-32B share?
23 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.6 has 68 scored results on Noometry and QwQ-32B has 36.