Model comparison
Claude Opus 4 vs Qwen2.5-Max
Claude Opus 4 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.1 to 40.7 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 20 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 20 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4 scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen2.5-Max in 1 category; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Claude Opus 4 leads 44.0 to 35.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is Short-Story Creative Writing: 83.6% for Claude Opus 4 and 72.9% for Qwen2.5-Max.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 4 | Qwen2.5-Max | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 43.1 | 40.7 |
| Released | 2025-05-22 | 2025-01-25 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 200K | — |
| Max output | 32K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $15 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $75 | — |
| Results tracked | 56 | 27 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Opus 4 leads
Claude Opus 4: 47.2 (#62), Qwen2.5-Max: 41.8 (#117)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1442 | 1359 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 70.7% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 67.6% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | 72% | — |
| GSO | 6.9% | — |
| WeirdML | 43.7% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 64.4% |
| AlgoTune | 1.33 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Opus 4: 34.8 (#42), Qwen2.5-Max: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| Cybench | 38% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 46.8% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1127 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 63.9% | — |
Reasoning Claude Opus 4 leads
Claude Opus 4: 27.3 (#121), Qwen2.5-Max: 25.6 (#147)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1399 | 1360 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 142.67 | 132.53 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 8.6% | — |
| SimpleBench | 58.8% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 74.3% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 35.7% | — |
| CritPt | 0.3% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 5.6% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 51.4% |
| DTBench | 81.6% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 67.9% |
| LMCA | 37.4% | — |
| ForecastBench | 61.1 | — |
| LiveBench | — | 62.3% |
Math Claude Opus 4 leads
Claude Opus 4: 42.0 (#86), Qwen2.5-Max: 36.9 (#162)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1390 | 1369 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 64.4% | — |
| Omni-MATH | 61.6% | — |
| LiveBench Math | — | 58.4% |
| MATH Level 5 | 85% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 4.5% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | — |
Knowledge Claude Opus 4 leads
Claude Opus 4: 44.0 (#88), Qwen2.5-Max: 35.3 (#186)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| Confabulations | 15.9% | 21.8% |
| LMArena Expert | 1386 | 1337 |
| GPQA Diamond | 76.3% | — |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 10.7% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 87.5% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 70.8% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Opus 4: 31.5 (#106), Qwen2.5-Max: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1192 | — |
| GeoBench | 49% | — |
| VPCT | 38% | — |
Multilingual Too close to call
Claude Opus 4: 48.8 (#138), Qwen2.5-Max: 48.1 (#146)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1362 | 1352 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1386 | 1382 |
| LMArena French | 1372 | 1396 |
| LMArena German | 1391 | 1350 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1331 | 1300 |
| LMArena Korean | 1321 | 1304 |
| LMArena Russian | 1392 | 1353 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1389 | 1377 |
Instruction Following Claude Opus 4 leads
Claude Opus 4: 77.1 (#28), Qwen2.5-Max: 71.3 (#152)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1406 | 1335 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 75.3% |
| IFEval | 91.8% | — |
Long Context Qwen2.5-Max leads
Claude Opus 4: 39.6 (#172), Qwen2.5-Max: 41.4 (#142)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1422 | 1358 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 61.1% | — |
Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4 leads
Claude Opus 4: 61.2 (#89), Qwen2.5-Max: 55.4 (#146)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1377 | 1367 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1387 | 1339 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 83.6% | 72.9% |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1396 | 1364 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1580 | — |
| WildBench | 85.2% | — |
| LiveBench Language | — | 56.3% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4 better than Qwen2.5-Max?
Claude Opus 4 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.1 to 40.7 on the Noometry Index.
Is Claude Opus 4 or Qwen2.5-Max better for coding?
Claude Opus 4 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 47.2 versus 41.8 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4 and Qwen2.5-Max share?
20 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4 has 56 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Max has 27.