Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.8 vs Qwen2.5-Coder-32B

Claude Opus 4.8 is the stronger model overall, scoring 60.7 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 4.8's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.8 Anthropic

60.7

Rank #13 Confirmed

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

33.4

Rank #245 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.8 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 math, where Claude Opus 4.8 leads 78.4 to 33.3.
  • Qwen2.5-Coder-32B is cheaper at $0.66 / $1 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.8.
  • Claude Opus 4.8 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 4.8Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
ProviderAnthropicAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index60.733.4
Released2026-05-282024-09-18
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M33K
Max output128K29K
Input $ / M tokens$5$0.66
Output $ / M tokens$25$1
Results tracked6531

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

Category by category

Coding Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 59.9 (#12), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 22.6 (#333)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Coding14901276
DeepSWE59%—
FrontierCode46.5%—
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)—9%
Aider Polyglot—16.4%
LMArena WebDev1556—
SciCode53.5%—
GSO47.1%—
WeirdML82.9%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—49%
LiveBench Coding—56.9%
BigCodeBench Complete—58%
ALE-Bench1,564—
HumanEval+—87.2%
MBPP+—77%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.8: 47.6 (#11), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
APEX-Agents48.9%—
OSWorld 2.020.6%—
Remote Labor Index8.3%—
τ²-bench Banking39.7%—
DeepResearch Bench50.2%—
PostTrainBench33.8%—
GBAEval70.9%—
GDP.pdf24%—
LMArena Search1204—
Vending-Bench 25,787—

Reasoning Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 64.7 (#16), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 21.2 (#225)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Hard Prompts14821251
Epoch Capabilities Index158.21119.49
ARC-AGI-272.1%—
SimpleBench64.8%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark88.8%—
NYT Connections (extended)91.1%—
ARC-AGI-192.5%—
CritPt20.9%—
Chess Puzzles34%—
EnigmaEval23.5%—
EBR-Bench28.6%—
LiveBench Reasoning—42.1%
Mystery Game Puzzles36%—
DTBench94.9%—
LiveBench Data Analysis—49.9%
LMCA57.5%—
Surface Evolver Bench87.5%—
Bench to the Future 30.14—
ForecastBench59.9—
HellaSwag—83%
LiveBench—46.2%
WinoGrande—80.8%

Math Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 78.4 (#13), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.3 (#204)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Math14871251
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)80%—
FrontierMath Tier 456.1%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions91.8%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202598.3%—
ProofBench69%—
LiveBench Math—46.6%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)47.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)31.3%—
GSM8K—93%

Knowledge Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 61.3 (#29), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.4 (#203)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Expert15021221
GPQA Diamond91%—
SimpleQA Verified53%—
ARC (AI2) Challenge—70.5%
MMLU—79.1%

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.8: 42.9 (#26), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Vision1294—
Blueprint-Bench 214.5%—
Furniture Assembly42.5%—
LMArena Document1475—

Multilingual Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 55.2 (#33), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 37.8 (#235)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Non-English14501205
LMArena Chinese15071222
LMArena Russian14741228
LMArena French1481—
LMArena German1472—
LMArena Japanese1440—
LMArena Korean1432—
LMArena Spanish1466—

Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 77.4 (#24), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 61.4 (#245)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Instruction Following14761223
LiveBench Instruction Following—58.7%

Long Context Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 45.4 (#35), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 38.0 (#208)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Longer Query14831251

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 72.0 (#16), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 41.6 (#240)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Text14611230
LMArena Creative Writing14541174
LMArena Multi-Turn14761222
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1840—
EQ-Bench 41281—
LiveBench Language—23.3%

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.8 better than Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?

Claude Opus 4.8 is the stronger model overall, scoring 60.7 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 4.8's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.8 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 4.8 lists at $5 and $25.

Is Claude Opus 4.8 or Qwen2.5-Coder-32B better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.8 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 59.9 versus 22.6 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 4.8 does, with 1M tokens against 33K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.8 and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B share?

13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.8 has 65 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has 31.

Related comparisons

Go deeper