Model comparison
Claude Opus 5 vs QwQ-32B
Claude Opus 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 67.8 to 39.8 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 22 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 22 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 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 leads 77.2 to 23.7.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 98.9% for Claude Opus 5 and 59.2% for QwQ-32B.
- QwQ-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 5 | QwQ-32B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 67.8 | 39.8 |
| Released | 2026-07-24 | 2024-11-28 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1M | — |
| Max output | 128K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $5 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $25 | — |
| Results tracked | 57 | 36 |
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), QwQ-32B: 35.4 (#226)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1534 | 1333 |
| DeepSWE | 73.6% | — |
| FrontierCode | 53.4% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 20.9% |
| CursorBench | 46.6% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1691 | — |
| FrontierSWE | 52% | — |
| SciCode | 56.4% | — |
| WeirdML | 91.8% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 44.6% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 72.2% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 54.4% |
| ALE-Bench | 2,165 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Opus 5: 55.6 (#1), QwQ-32B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 65.8% | — |
| OSWorld 2.0 | 31.4% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 48.7% | — |
| PostTrainBench | 35% | — |
| BALROG | 63.4% | — |
| GBAEval | 79.6% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 24% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 11,182 | — |
Reasoning Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 77.2 (#4), QwQ-32B: 23.7 (#174)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 42% | 5% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1526 | 1325 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 162.78 | 137.6 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 90.4% | — |
| SimpleBench | 80.6% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 94.3% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | — |
| CritPt | 29.1% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 45.7% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 83.5% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 59% | — |
| DTBench | 97.9% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 65% |
| LMCA | 64.5% | — |
| Bench to the Future 3 | 0.12 | — |
| ForecastBench | — | 58.3 |
| LiveBench | — | 72% |
Math Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 86.2 (#8), QwQ-32B: 38.0 (#143)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 98.9% | 59.2% |
| LMArena Math | 1531 | 1359 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 85.6% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 73.2% | — |
| ProofBench | 99% | — |
| LiveBench Math | — | 77.8% |
Knowledge Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 66.8 (#9), QwQ-32B: 37.2 (#158)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 93.9% | 65.3% |
| LMArena Expert | 1557 | 1324 |
| SimpleQA Verified | 59.9% | — |
| Confabulations | — | 15.6% |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Opus 5: 50.8 (#8), QwQ-32B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1319 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 30.4% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 60.8% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1516 | — |
Multilingual Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 58.8 (#4), QwQ-32B: 44.8 (#176)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1501 | 1305 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1574 | 1378 |
| LMArena French | 1519 | 1336 |
| LMArena German | 1524 | 1313 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1516 | 1262 |
| LMArena Korean | 1521 | 1279 |
| LMArena Russian | 1507 | 1297 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1519 | 1354 |
Instruction Following Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 79.2 (#7), QwQ-32B: 72.6 (#137)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1517 | 1297 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 81.8% |
Long Context QwQ-32B leads
Claude Opus 5: 46.5 (#21), QwQ-32B: 49.0 (#11)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1515 | 1308 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 83.3% |
Writing & Preference Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 79.2 (#1), QwQ-32B: 50.6 (#180)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1507 | 1329 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1491 | 1288 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2133 | 1257 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1499 | 1314 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 80.2% |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1385 | — |
| LiveBench Language | — | 51.4% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 5 better than QwQ-32B?
Claude Opus 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 67.8 to 39.8 on the Noometry Index.
Is Claude Opus 5 or QwQ-32B better for coding?
Claude Opus 5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 67.5 versus 35.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 5 and QwQ-32B share?
22 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 5 has 57 scored results on Noometry and QwQ-32B has 36.