Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 5 vs Qwen3 32B

Claude Opus 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 67.8 to 39.2 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3 32B costs 8.2× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 21 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 5 Anthropic

67.8

Rank #4 Confirmed

Qwen3 32B Alibaba (Qwen)

39.2

Rank #172 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 21 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 5 scores higher in 9 categories and Qwen3 32B in 0 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Opus 5 leads 77.2 to 20.2.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is LMCA: 64.5% for Claude Opus 5 and 17.3% for Qwen3 32B.
  • Qwen3 32B is cheaper at $0.70 / $2.80 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 5.
  • Claude Opus 5 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 131K.
  • Qwen3 32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 5Qwen3 32B
ProviderAnthropicAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index67.839.2
Released2026-07-242025-04
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M131K
Max output128K16K
Input $ / M tokens$5$0.70
Output $ / M tokens$25$2.80
Results tracked5726

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

Category by category

Coding Claude Opus 5 leads

Claude Opus 5: 67.5 (#5), Qwen3 32B: 37.7 (#190)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5Qwen3 32B
SciCode56.4%35.4%
LMArena Coding15341358
DeepSWE73.6%—
FrontierCode53.4%—
Aider Polyglot—40%
CursorBench46.6%—
LMArena WebDev1691—
FrontierSWE52%—
WeirdML91.8%—
ALE-Bench2,165—

Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 5 leads

Claude Opus 5: 55.6 (#1), Qwen3 32B: 32.6 (#62)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5Qwen3 32B
APEX-Agents65.8%—
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—48.7%
OSWorld 2.031.4%—
τ²-bench Banking48.7%—
PostTrainBench35%—
BALROG63.4%—
GBAEval79.6%—
GDP.pdf24%—
Vending-Bench 211,182—

Reasoning Claude Opus 5 leads

Claude Opus 5: 77.2 (#4), Qwen3 32B: 20.2 (#241)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5Qwen3 32B
CritPt29.1%0.3%
Chess Puzzles42%5%
LMArena Hard Prompts15261334
DTBench97.9%67.5%
LMCA64.5%17.3%
Epoch Capabilities Index162.78138.51
ARC-AGI-290.4%—
SimpleBench80.6%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark—54.9%
NYT Connections (extended)94.3%—
ARC-AGI-197.5%—
EBR-Bench45.7%—
Mystery Game Puzzles59%—
Bench to the Future 30.12—

Math Claude Opus 5 leads

Claude Opus 5: 86.2 (#8), Qwen3 32B: 39.7 (#99)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5Qwen3 32B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202598.9%66.9%
LMArena Math15311399
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)85.6%—
FrontierMath Tier 473.2%—
ProofBench99%—

Knowledge Claude Opus 5 leads

Claude Opus 5: 66.8 (#9), Qwen3 32B: 40.0 (#125)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5Qwen3 32B
GPQA Diamond93.9%65.7%
LMArena Expert15571362
SimpleQA Verified59.9%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate—5.9%

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Opus 5: 50.8 (#8), Qwen3 32B: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5Qwen3 32B
LMArena Vision1319—
Blueprint-Bench 230.4%—
Furniture Assembly60.8%—
LMArena Document1516—

Multilingual Claude Opus 5 leads

Claude Opus 5: 58.8 (#4), Qwen3 32B: 45.6 (#167)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5Qwen3 32B
LMArena Non-English15011317
LMArena Chinese15741357
LMArena German15241341
LMArena Russian15071311
LMArena French1519—
LMArena Japanese1516—
LMArena Korean1521—
LMArena Spanish1519—

Instruction Following Claude Opus 5 leads

Claude Opus 5: 79.2 (#7), Qwen3 32B: 68.9 (#179)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5Qwen3 32B
LMArena Instruction Following15171305

Long Context Claude Opus 5 leads

Claude Opus 5: 46.5 (#21), Qwen3 32B: 43.8 (#87)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5Qwen3 32B
LMArena Longer Query15151327
Fiction.LiveBench—74.2%

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 5 leads

Claude Opus 5: 79.2 (#1), Qwen3 32B: 52.9 (#163)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5Qwen3 32B
LMArena Text15071340
LMArena Creative Writing14911297
LMArena Multi-Turn14991331
EQ-Bench Creative Writing2133—
EQ-Bench 41385—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 5 better than Qwen3 32B?

Claude Opus 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 67.8 to 39.2 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3 32B costs 8.2× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 5 or Qwen3 32B?

Qwen3 32B is cheaper. It lists at $0.70 per million input tokens and $2.80 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 5 lists at $5 and $25.

Is Claude Opus 5 or Qwen3 32B better for coding?

Claude Opus 5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 67.5 versus 37.7 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 5 does, with 1M tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 5 and Qwen3 32B share?

21 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 5 has 57 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 32B has 26.

Related comparisons

Go deeper