Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 5.5 vs Qwen1.5-32B

Claude Opus 5.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.6 to 30.5 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 15 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 5.5 Anthropic

68.6

Rank #3 Confirmed

Qwen1.5-32B Alibaba (Qwen)

30.5

Rank #293 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 15 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen1.5-32B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Claude Opus 5.5 leads 91.8 to 33.0.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 90.6% for Claude Opus 5.5 and 30.7% for Qwen1.5-32B.
  • Qwen1.5-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 5.5Qwen1.5-32B
ProviderAnthropicAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index68.630.5
Released2026-09-222024-02-04
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M—
Max output128K—
Input $ / M tokens$4—
Output $ / M tokens$20—
Results tracked4421

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

Category by category

Coding Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 71.9 (#3), Qwen1.5-32B: 31.7 (#282)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Coding15471155
FrontierCode54.6%—
CursorBench57.8%—
LMArena WebDev1813—
FrontierSWE62.3%—
SciCode66.9%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—32.3%
MirrorCode77.4%—
BigCodeBench Complete—42%
ALE-Bench2,147—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Claude Opus 5.5: 45.3 (#15), Qwen1.5-32B: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Qwen1.5-32B
APEX-Agents73.5%—
GDP.pdf30.6%—
Vending-Bench 29,235—

Reasoning Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 80.2 (#3), Qwen1.5-32B: 21.8 (#212)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Hard Prompts15351130
ARC-AGI-293.3%—
NYT Connections (extended)88.5%—
ARC-AGI-198.5%—
CritPt31.7%—
EBR-Bench71.4%—
Mystery Game Puzzles71%—
DTBench98.9%—
LMCA68.2%—
Epoch Capabilities Index167.33—

Math Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 91.8 (#3), Qwen1.5-32B: 33.0 (#207)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Math15061155
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)91.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 495%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025100%—
ProofBench100%—
FrontierMath Erdős2.9%—

Knowledge Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 66.4 (#10), Qwen1.5-32B: 13.5 (#296)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Qwen1.5-32B
GPQA Diamond90.6%30.7%
LMArena Expert15471126
SimpleQA Verified72.2%—
MMLU—74.4%

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Opus 5.5: 57.8 (#1), Qwen1.5-32B: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Vision1321—
Blueprint-Bench 251.2%—
Furniture Assembly83.3%—

Multilingual Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 59.1 (#2), Qwen1.5-32B: 31.4 (#259)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Non-English15071106
LMArena Chinese15881177
LMArena French15141101
LMArena Russian15201073
LMArena Spanish15071089
LMArena German—1058
LMArena Japanese—1027
LMArena Korean—1008

Instruction Following Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 80.0 (#3), Qwen1.5-32B: 57.7 (#265)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Instruction Following15371116

Long Context Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 47.1 (#19), Qwen1.5-32B: 34.7 (#246)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Longer Query15321146

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 78.2 (#3), Qwen1.5-32B: 34.2 (#271)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Qwen1.5-32B
LMArena Text15151137
LMArena Creative Writing15331083
LMArena Multi-Turn14991140
EQ-Bench Creative Writing2050—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 5.5 better than Qwen1.5-32B?

Claude Opus 5.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.6 to 30.5 on the Noometry Index.

Is Claude Opus 5.5 or Qwen1.5-32B better for coding?

Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 71.9 versus 31.7 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 5.5 and Qwen1.5-32B share?

15 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 5.5 has 44 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-32B has 21.

Related comparisons

Go deeper