Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 5.5 vs Qwen2.5 32B Instruct

Claude Opus 5.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.5 to 29.7 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5 32B Instruct costs 6.5× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 5.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 5.5 Anthropic

68.5

Rank #3 Confirmed

Qwen2.5 32B Instruct Alibaba (Qwen)

29.7

Rank #291 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher in 4 categories and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct in 0 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Claude Opus 5.5 leads 92.4 to 15.3.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 100% for Claude Opus 5.5 and 7.4% for Qwen2.5 32B Instruct.
  • Qwen2.5 32B Instruct is cheaper at $0.70 / $2.80 per million input/output tokens, against $4 / $20 for Claude Opus 5.5.
  • Claude Opus 5.5 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 131K.
  • Qwen2.5 32B Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 5.5Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
ProviderAnthropicAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index68.529.7
Released2026-09-222024-09
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M131K
Max output128K8K
Input $ / M tokens$4$0.70
Output $ / M tokens$20$2.80
Results tracked357

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: 71.4 (#1), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 38.1 (#165)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
FrontierCode54.4%—
CursorBench57.8%—
LMArena WebDev1820—
FrontierSWE62.3%—
SciCode66.9%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—45%
LMArena Coding1545—
MirrorCode77.4%—
BigCodeBench Complete—52.3%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Claude Opus 5.5: 45.3 (#13), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
APEX-Agents73.5%—
GDP.pdf30.6%—

Reasoning Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 79.5 (#2), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 18.5 (#262)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
ARC-AGI-292.5%—
NYT Connections (extended)88.5%—
ARC-AGI-197.5%—
CritPt31.7%—
Chess Puzzles—0%
EBR-Bench71.4%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1545—
Mystery Game Puzzles71%—
DTBench98.9%—
LMCA68.2%—
Epoch Capabilities Index—128.52

Math Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 92.4 (#2), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 15.3 (#289)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025100%7.4%
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)91.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 495%—
ProofBench100%—
MATH Level 5—56.1%

Knowledge Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 66.6 (#9), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 24.9 (#259)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
GPQA Diamond90.6%46.1%
SimpleQA Verified72.2%—
LMArena Expert1564—

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Opus 5.5: 56.5 (#2), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
Furniture Assembly83.3%—

Multilingual Not comparable

Claude Opus 5.5: 59.8 (#1), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
LMArena Non-English1513—
LMArena Chinese1572—
LMArena Russian1532—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Claude Opus 5.5: 80.1 (#2), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
LMArena Instruction Following1535—

Long Context Not comparable

Claude Opus 5.5: 47.3 (#18), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
LMArena Longer Query1540—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Claude Opus 5.5: 78.7 (#3), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
LMArena Text1518—
LMArena Creative Writing1538—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing2050—
LMArena Multi-Turn1520—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 5.5 better than Qwen2.5 32B Instruct?

Claude Opus 5.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.5 to 29.7 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5 32B Instruct costs 6.5× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 5.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 5.5 or Qwen2.5 32B Instruct?

Qwen2.5 32B Instruct is cheaper. It lists at $0.70 per million input tokens and $2.80 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 5.5 lists at $4 and $20.

Is Claude Opus 5.5 or Qwen2.5 32B Instruct better for coding?

Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 71.4 versus 38.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 5.5 does, with 1M tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 5.5 and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct share?

2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 5.5 has 35 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct has 7.

Related comparisons

Go deeper