Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs Qwen2.5-Coder-32B

Claude Sonnet 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.3 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5-Coder-32B costs 8.1× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Sonnet 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.

Claude Sonnet 4.6 Anthropic

50.3

Rank #50 Confirmed

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B Alibaba (Qwen)

33.4

Rank #245 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Sonnet 4.6 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 writing & preference, where Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads 70.2 to 41.6.
  • Qwen2.5-Coder-32B is cheaper at $0.66 / $1 per million input/output tokens, against $3 / $15 for Claude Sonnet 4.6.
  • Claude Sonnet 4.6 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 33K.
  • Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Sonnet 4.6Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
ProviderAnthropicAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index50.333.4
Released2026-02-172024-09-18
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M33K
Max output128K29K
Input $ / M tokens$3$0.66
Output $ / M tokens$15$1
Results tracked5731

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

Category by category

Coding Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads

Claude Sonnet 4.6: 46.3 (#67), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 22.6 (#333)

BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Coding15041276
SWE-bench Verified75.2%—
DeepSWE29.9%—
FrontierCode24.3%—
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)—9%
Aider Polyglot—16.4%
LMArena WebDev1522—
SciCode46.8%—
WeirdML66.1%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—49%
LiveBench Coding—56.9%
BigCodeBench Complete—58%
ALE-Bench1,327—
HumanEval+—87.2%
MBPP+—77%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Claude Sonnet 4.6: 39.1 (#28), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: —

BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
Terminal-Bench53.4%—
APEX-Agents43%—
OSWorld 2.09.3%—
DeepResearch Bench54.9%—
OSWorld72.1%—
ExploitBench23.6%—
GBAEval48.8%—
GDP.pdf18%—
LMArena Search1221—
Vending-Bench 27,204—

Reasoning Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads

Claude Sonnet 4.6: 46.1 (#45), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 21.2 (#225)

BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Hard Prompts14841251
Epoch Capabilities Index152.24119.49
ARC-AGI-260.4%—
NYT Connections (extended)80.9%—
ARC-AGI-186.5%—
CritPt3.1%—
Chess Puzzles13%—
Thematic Generalization76.3%—
LiveBench Reasoning—42.1%
Mystery Game Puzzles16%—
DTBench89.9%—
LiveBench Data Analysis—49.9%
LMCA46.5%—
ForecastBench62—
HellaSwag—83%
LiveBench—46.2%
WinoGrande—80.8%

Math Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads

Claude Sonnet 4.6: 52.9 (#49), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.3 (#204)

BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Math14621251
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202585.8%—
ProofBench45%—
LiveBench Math—46.6%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)32.4%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)8.3%—
GSM8K—93%

Knowledge Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads

Claude Sonnet 4.6: 51.7 (#65), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.4 (#203)

BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Expert15001221
GPQA Diamond87.4%—
SimpleQA Verified35.5%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate10.6%—
ARC (AI2) Challenge—70.5%
MMLU—79.1%

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Sonnet 4.6: 38.0 (#68), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: —

BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Vision1283—
Blueprint-Bench 26.7%—
LMArena Document1482—

Multilingual Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads

Claude Sonnet 4.6: 54.4 (#41), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 37.8 (#235)

BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Non-English14401205
LMArena Chinese14911222
LMArena Russian14401228
LMArena French1465—
LMArena German1428—
LMArena Japanese1420—
LMArena Korean1411—
LMArena Spanish1464—

Instruction Following Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads

Claude Sonnet 4.6: 77.4 (#25), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 61.4 (#245)

BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Instruction Following14751223
LiveBench Instruction Following—58.7%

Long Context Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads

Claude Sonnet 4.6: 45.3 (#44), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 38.0 (#208)

BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Longer Query14791251

Writing & Preference Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads

Claude Sonnet 4.6: 70.2 (#22), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 41.6 (#240)

BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Text14581230
LMArena Creative Writing14351174
LMArena Multi-Turn14641222
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1810—
EQ-Bench 41207—
LiveBench Language—23.3%

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Sonnet 4.6 better than Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?

Claude Sonnet 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.3 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5-Coder-32B costs 8.1× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Sonnet 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Claude Sonnet 4.6 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 Sonnet 4.6 lists at $3 and $15.

Is Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Qwen2.5-Coder-32B better for coding?

Claude Sonnet 4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 46.3 versus 22.6 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Sonnet 4.6 does, with 1M tokens against 33K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Sonnet 4.6 and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B share?

13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Sonnet 4.6 has 57 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has 31.

Related comparisons

Go deeper