Model comparison
Claude Opus 5.5 vs Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
Claude Opus 5.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.6 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5-Coder-32B costs 11× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 5.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 5.5 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 reasoning, where Claude Opus 5.5 leads 80.2 to 21.2.
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B is cheaper at $0.66 / $1 per million input/output tokens, against $4 / $20 for Claude Opus 5.5.
- Claude Opus 5.5 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 5.5 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 68.6 | 33.4 |
| Released | 2026-09-22 | 2024-09-18 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1M | 33K |
| Max output | 128K | 29K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $4 | $0.66 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $20 | $1 |
| Results tracked | 44 | 31 |
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), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 22.6 (#333)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1547 | 1276 |
| FrontierCode | 54.6% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | — | 9% |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 16.4% |
| CursorBench | 57.8% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1813 | — |
| FrontierSWE | 62.3% | — |
| SciCode | 66.9% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 49% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 56.9% |
| MirrorCode | 77.4% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 58% |
| ALE-Bench | 2,147 | — |
| HumanEval+ | — | 87.2% |
| MBPP+ | — | 77% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Opus 5.5: 45.3 (#15), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 73.5% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 30.6% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 9,235 | — |
Reasoning Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 80.2 (#3), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 21.2 (#225)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1535 | 1251 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 167.33 | 119.49 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 93.3% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 88.5% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 98.5% | — |
| CritPt | 31.7% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 71.4% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 42.1% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 71% | — |
| DTBench | 98.9% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 49.9% |
| LMCA | 68.2% | — |
| HellaSwag | — | 83% |
| LiveBench | — | 46.2% |
| WinoGrande | — | 80.8% |
Math Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 91.8 (#3), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.3 (#204)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1506 | 1251 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 91.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 95% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | — |
| ProofBench | 100% | — |
| LiveBench Math | — | 46.6% |
| FrontierMath Erdős | 2.9% | — |
| GSM8K | — | 93% |
Knowledge Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 66.4 (#10), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.4 (#203)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1547 | 1221 |
| GPQA Diamond | 90.6% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 72.2% | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 70.5% |
| MMLU | — | 79.1% |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Opus 5.5: 57.8 (#1), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1321 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 51.2% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 83.3% | — |
Multilingual Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 59.1 (#2), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 37.8 (#235)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1507 | 1205 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1588 | 1222 |
| LMArena Russian | 1520 | 1228 |
| LMArena French | 1514 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1507 | — |
Instruction Following Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 80.0 (#3), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 61.4 (#245)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1537 | 1223 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 58.7% |
Long Context Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 47.1 (#19), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 38.0 (#208)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1532 | 1251 |
Writing & Preference Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 78.2 (#3), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 41.6 (#240)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1515 | 1230 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1533 | 1174 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1499 | 1222 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2050 | — |
| LiveBench Language | — | 23.3% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 5.5 better than Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?
Claude Opus 5.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.6 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5-Coder-32B costs 11× 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-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 5.5 lists at $4 and $20.
Is Claude Opus 5.5 or Qwen2.5-Coder-32B better for coding?
Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 71.9 versus 22.6 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Claude Opus 5.5 does, with 1M tokens against 33K.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 5.5 and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B share?
13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 5.5 has 44 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has 31.