# Claude 2.1 vs Qwen3 32B

> Qwen3 32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 24.9 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/claude-2-1-vs-qwen3-32b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 4

## Summary

- They share 4 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude 2.1 scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3 32B in 3 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3 32B leads 37.9 to 9.6.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 1.9% for Claude 2.1 and 66.9% for Qwen3 32B.
- Qwen3 32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 24.9 | 38.8 |
| Rank | 340 | 166 |
| Context | — | 131K |
| Input $/M | — | $0.70 |
| Output $/M | — | $2.80 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Claude 2.1: 25.8 (#322)
- Qwen3 32B: 37.3 (#184)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Aider Polyglot | — | 40% |
| SciCode | — | 35.4% |
| WeirdML | 7.1% | — |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1358 |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Claude 2.1: —
- Qwen3 32B: 32.3 (#58)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 48.7% |

## Reasoning

- Claude 2.1: 20.6 (#216)
- Qwen3 32B: 19.6 (#233)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| DTBench | 51% | 67.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 119.22 | 138.51 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 54.9% |
| CritPt | — | 0.3% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 5% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1335 |
| LMCA | — | 17.3% |
| ForecastBench | 54.2 | — |

## Math

- Claude 2.1: 9.6 (#309)
- Qwen3 32B: 37.9 (#89)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 1.9% | 66.9% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1399 |

## Knowledge

- Claude 2.1: 15.5 (#287)
- Qwen3 32B: 40.0 (#112)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 33% | 65.7% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 5.9% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1362 |
| MMLU | 73.5% | — |

## Multilingual

- Claude 2.1: —
- Qwen3 32B: 45.8 (#162)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1317 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1357 |
| LMArena German | — | 1341 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1311 |

## Instruction Following

- Claude 2.1: —
- Qwen3 32B: 69.1 (#174)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1305 |

## Long Context

- Claude 2.1: —
- Qwen3 32B: 43.7 (#83)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 74.2% |
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1327 |

## Writing & Preference

- Claude 2.1: —
- Qwen3 32B: 53.1 (#158)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1340 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1297 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1331 |

## FAQ

### Is Claude 2.1 better than Qwen3 32B?

Qwen3 32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 24.9 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Claude 2.1 or Qwen3 32B better for coding?

Qwen3 32B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.3 versus 25.8 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Claude 2.1 and Qwen3 32B share?

4 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude 2.1 has 7 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 32B has 26.