Model comparison

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

Claude Sonnet 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.6 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5-Coder-32B costs 5.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Sonnet 5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.

Claude Sonnet 5 Anthropic

54.6

Rank #29 Confirmed

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

33.4

Rank #245 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Sonnet 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 math, where Claude Sonnet 5 leads 66.2 to 33.3.
  • Qwen2.5-Coder-32B is cheaper at $0.66 / $1 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $10 for Claude Sonnet 5.
  • Claude Sonnet 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 Sonnet 5 and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B specifications
Claude Sonnet 5Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
ProviderAnthropicAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index54.633.4
Released2026-06-292024-09-18
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M33K
Max output128K29K
Input $ / M tokens$2$0.66
Output $ / M tokens$10$1
Results tracked5131

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

Category by category

Coding Claude Sonnet 5 leads

Claude Sonnet 5: 55.5 (#26), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 22.6 (#333)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 5Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Coding14831276
DeepSWE53.8%—
FrontierCode42.7%—
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)—9%
Aider Polyglot—16.4%
CursorBench34.1%—
LMArena WebDev1541—
SciCode54.3%—
GSO37.3%—
WeirdML68.8%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—49%
LiveBench Coding—56.9%
BigCodeBench Complete—58%
ALE-Bench1,463—
HumanEval+—87.2%
MBPP+—77%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Claude Sonnet 5: 42.8 (#18), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 5Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
APEX-Agents54.5%—
GBAEval65.3%—
LMArena Search1194—
Vending-Bench 26,378—

Reasoning Claude Sonnet 5 leads

Claude Sonnet 5: 49.1 (#39), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 21.2 (#225)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 5Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Hard Prompts14611251
Epoch Capabilities Index156.21119.49
SimpleBench60.6%—
NYT Connections (extended)75.1%—
CritPt16.9%—
Chess Puzzles35%—
LiveBench Reasoning—42.1%
Mystery Game Puzzles35%—
DTBench92.5%—
LiveBench Data Analysis—49.9%
LMCA50%—
Surface Evolver Bench60%—
Bench to the Future 30.14—
ForecastBench61.1—
HellaSwag—83%
LiveBench—46.2%
WinoGrande—80.8%

Math Claude Sonnet 5 leads

Claude Sonnet 5: 66.2 (#27), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.3 (#204)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 5Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Math14671251
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)65.6%—
FrontierMath Tier 429.3%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202594.7%—
ProofBench77%—
LiveBench Math—46.6%
GSM8K—93%

Knowledge Claude Sonnet 5 leads

Claude Sonnet 5: 55.6 (#47), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.4 (#203)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 5Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Expert14901221
GPQA Diamond90.5%—
SimpleQA Verified33.7%—
ARC (AI2) Challenge—70.5%
MMLU—79.1%

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Sonnet 5: 42.4 (#31), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: —

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 5Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Vision1274—
Blueprint-Bench 224.9%—
LMArena Document1466—

Multilingual Claude Sonnet 5 leads

Claude Sonnet 5: 53.8 (#55), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 37.8 (#235)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 5Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Non-English14311205
LMArena Chinese14771222
LMArena Russian14511228
LMArena French1460—
LMArena German1440—
LMArena Japanese1422—
LMArena Korean1411—
LMArena Spanish1437—

Instruction Following Claude Sonnet 5 leads

Claude Sonnet 5: 76.3 (#41), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 61.4 (#245)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 5Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Instruction Following14521223
LiveBench Instruction Following—58.7%

Long Context Claude Sonnet 5 leads

Claude Sonnet 5: 44.8 (#55), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 38.0 (#208)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 5Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Longer Query14631251

Writing & Preference Claude Sonnet 5 leads

Claude Sonnet 5: 69.2 (#25), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 41.6 (#240)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 5Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Text14421230
LMArena Creative Writing14161174
LMArena Multi-Turn14541222
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1794—
EQ-Bench 41236—
LiveBench Language—23.3%

Frequently asked questions

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

Claude Sonnet 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.6 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5-Coder-32B costs 5.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Sonnet 5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Claude Sonnet 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 Sonnet 5 lists at $2 and $10.

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

Claude Sonnet 5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 55.5 versus 22.6 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Sonnet 5 does, with 1M tokens against 33K.

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

13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Sonnet 5 has 51 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has 31.

Related comparisons

Go deeper