Model comparison
Claude Opus 4 vs QwQ-32B
Claude Opus 4 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.1 to 39.8 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 26 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 26 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4 scores higher in 7 categories and QwQ-32B in 1 category; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in coding, where Claude Opus 4 leads 47.2 to 35.4.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is Aider Polyglot: 72% for Claude Opus 4 and 20.9% for QwQ-32B.
- QwQ-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 4 | QwQ-32B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 43.1 | 39.8 |
| Released | 2025-05-22 | 2024-11-28 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 200K | — |
| Max output | 32K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $15 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $75 | — |
| Results tracked | 56 | 36 |
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), QwQ-32B: 35.4 (#226)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Aider Polyglot | 72% | 20.9% |
| LMArena Coding | 1442 | 1333 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 70.7% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 67.6% | — |
| GSO | 6.9% | — |
| WeirdML | 43.7% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 44.6% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 72.2% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 54.4% |
| AlgoTune | 1.33 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Opus 4: 34.8 (#42), QwQ-32B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| 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), QwQ-32B: 23.7 (#174)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1399 | 1325 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 142.67 | 137.6 |
| ForecastBench | 61.1 | 58.3 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 8.6% | — |
| SimpleBench | 58.8% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 74.3% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 35.7% | — |
| CritPt | 0.3% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 5% |
| EnigmaEval | 5.6% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 83.5% |
| DTBench | 81.6% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 65% |
| LMCA | 37.4% | — |
| LiveBench | — | 72% |
Math Claude Opus 4 leads
Claude Opus 4: 42.0 (#86), QwQ-32B: 38.0 (#143)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 64.4% | 59.2% |
| LMArena Math | 1390 | 1359 |
| Omni-MATH | 61.6% | — |
| LiveBench Math | — | 77.8% |
| 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), QwQ-32B: 37.2 (#158)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 76.3% | 65.3% |
| Confabulations | 15.9% | 15.6% |
| LMArena Expert | 1386 | 1324 |
| 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), QwQ-32B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1192 | — |
| GeoBench | 49% | — |
| VPCT | 38% | — |
Multilingual Claude Opus 4 leads
Claude Opus 4: 48.8 (#138), QwQ-32B: 44.8 (#176)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1362 | 1305 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1386 | 1378 |
| LMArena French | 1372 | 1336 |
| LMArena German | 1391 | 1313 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1331 | 1262 |
| LMArena Korean | 1321 | 1279 |
| LMArena Russian | 1392 | 1297 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1389 | 1354 |
Instruction Following Claude Opus 4 leads
Claude Opus 4: 77.1 (#28), QwQ-32B: 72.6 (#137)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1406 | 1297 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 81.8% |
| IFEval | 91.8% | — |
Long Context QwQ-32B leads
Claude Opus 4: 39.6 (#172), QwQ-32B: 49.0 (#11)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 61.1% | 83.3% |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1422 | 1308 |
Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4 leads
Claude Opus 4: 61.2 (#89), QwQ-32B: 50.6 (#180)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1377 | 1329 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1387 | 1288 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 83.6% | 80.2% |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1580 | 1257 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1396 | 1314 |
| WildBench | 85.2% | — |
| LiveBench Language | — | 51.4% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4 better than QwQ-32B?
Claude Opus 4 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.1 to 39.8 on the Noometry Index.
Is Claude Opus 4 or QwQ-32B better for coding?
Claude Opus 4 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 47.2 versus 35.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4 and QwQ-32B share?
26 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4 has 56 scored results on Noometry and QwQ-32B has 36.