Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 5.5 vs QwQ-32B

Claude Opus 5.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.5 to 39.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 14 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 5.5 Anthropic

68.5

Rank #3 Confirmed

QwQ-32B Alibaba (Qwen)

39.4

Rank #153 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher in 7 categories and QwQ-32B in 1 category; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Opus 5.5 leads 79.5 to 22.9.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 100% for Claude Opus 5.5 and 59.2% for QwQ-32B.
  • QwQ-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 5.5QwQ-32B
ProviderAnthropicAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index68.539.4
Released2026-09-222024-11-28
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M—
Max output128K—
Input $ / M tokens$4—
Output $ / M tokens$20—
Results tracked3536

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), QwQ-32B: 34.9 (#220)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5QwQ-32B
LMArena Coding15451333
FrontierCode54.4%—
Aider Polyglot—20.9%
CursorBench57.8%—
LMArena WebDev1820—
FrontierSWE62.3%—
SciCode66.9%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—44.6%
LiveBench Coding—72.2%
MirrorCode77.4%—
BigCodeBench Complete—54.4%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Claude Opus 5.5: 45.3 (#13), QwQ-32B: —

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

Reasoning Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 79.5 (#2), QwQ-32B: 22.9 (#171)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5QwQ-32B
LMArena Hard Prompts15451326
ARC-AGI-292.5%—
NYT Connections (extended)88.5%—
ARC-AGI-197.5%—
CritPt31.7%—
Chess Puzzles—5%
EBR-Bench71.4%—
LiveBench Reasoning—83.5%
Mystery Game Puzzles71%—
DTBench98.9%—
LiveBench Data Analysis—65%
LMCA68.2%—
Epoch Capabilities Index—137.6
ForecastBench—58.3
LiveBench—72%

Math Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 92.4 (#2), QwQ-32B: 36.2 (#123)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5QwQ-32B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025100%59.2%
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)91.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 495%—
ProofBench100%—
LiveBench Math—77.8%
LMArena Math—1359

Knowledge Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 66.6 (#9), QwQ-32B: 37.2 (#150)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5QwQ-32B
GPQA Diamond90.6%65.3%
LMArena Expert15641323
SimpleQA Verified72.2%—
Confabulations—15.6%

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Opus 5.5: 56.5 (#2), QwQ-32B: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5QwQ-32B
Furniture Assembly83.3%—

Multilingual Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 59.8 (#1), QwQ-32B: 45.0 (#171)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5QwQ-32B
LMArena Non-English15131306
LMArena Chinese15721378
LMArena Russian15321297
LMArena French—1337
LMArena German—1313
LMArena Japanese—1263
LMArena Korean—1278
LMArena Spanish—1353

Instruction Following Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 80.1 (#2), QwQ-32B: 72.8 (#131)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5QwQ-32B
LMArena Instruction Following15351297
LiveBench Instruction Following—81.8%

Long Context QwQ-32B leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 47.3 (#18), QwQ-32B: 49.0 (#11)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5QwQ-32B
LMArena Longer Query15401308
Fiction.LiveBench—83.3%

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 78.7 (#3), QwQ-32B: 50.9 (#175)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5QwQ-32B
LMArena Text15181329
LMArena Creative Writing15381288
EQ-Bench Creative Writing20501257
LMArena Multi-Turn15201314
Short-Story Creative Writing—80.2%
LiveBench Language—51.4%

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 5.5 better than QwQ-32B?

Claude Opus 5.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.5 to 39.4 on the Noometry Index.

Is Claude Opus 5.5 or QwQ-32B better for coding?

Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 71.4 versus 34.9 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 5.5 and QwQ-32B share?

14 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 5.5 has 35 scored results on Noometry and QwQ-32B has 36.

Related comparisons

Go deeper