# Claude Opus 4.1 vs Qwen2.5 32B Instruct

> Claude Opus 4.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.0 to 30.1 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5 32B Instruct costs 24× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/claude-opus-4-1-vs-qwen2-5-32b-instruct
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 4

## Summary

- They share 4 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.1 scores higher in 4 categories and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct in 0 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Claude Opus 4.1 leads 42.0 to 24.9.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 68.9% for Claude Opus 4.1 and 7.4% for Qwen2.5 32B Instruct.
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct is cheaper at $0.70 / $2.80 per million input/output tokens, against $15 / $75 for Claude Opus 4.1.
- Claude Opus 4.1 accepts more context: 200K tokens versus 131K.
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 41.0 | 30.1 |
| Rank | 142 | 297 |
| Context | 200K | 131K |
| Input $/M | $15 | $0.70 |
| Output $/M | $75 | $2.80 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Claude Opus 4.1: 44.4 (#73)
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 38.7 (#169)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | 73.3% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1390 | — |
| WeirdML | 45.9% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 45% |
| LMArena Coding | 1479 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 52.3% |
| ALE-Bench | 674.77 | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.34 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Claude Opus 4.1: 35.0 (#41)
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 38% | — |
| GDPval | 43.6% | — |
| Cybench | 42% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 48.3% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1148 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 66.8% | — |

## Reasoning

- Claude Opus 4.1: 32.2 (#76)
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 19.2 (#266)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 7% | 0% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 144.12 | 128.52 |
| SimpleBench | 60% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 7.2% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 7.9% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1443 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 21% | — |
| DTBench | 80% | — |
| LMCA | 37.1% | — |
| ForecastBench | 62 | — |

## Math

- Claude Opus 4.1: 22.3 (#277)
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 16.2 (#296)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 68.9% | 7.4% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 12.6% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 2.4% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1431 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 56.1% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 7.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | — |

## Knowledge

- Claude Opus 4.1: 42.0 (#101)
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 24.9 (#266)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 77.3% | 46.1% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 11.5% | — |
| Confabulations | 17.1% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 11.8% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1439 | — |

## Multimodal

- Claude Opus 4.1: 26.8 (#119)
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| VPCT | 35% | — |

## Multilingual

- Claude Opus 4.1: 52.0 (#95)
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1405 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1427 | — |
| LMArena French | 1431 | — |
| LMArena German | 1413 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1378 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1380 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1422 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1448 | — |

## Instruction Following

- Claude Opus 4.1: 75.6 (#58)
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1435 | — |

## Long Context

- Claude Opus 4.1: 44.5 (#63)
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1455 | — |

## Writing & Preference

- Claude Opus 4.1: 62.4 (#74)
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1419 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1412 | — |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 84.7% | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1444 | — |

## FAQ

### Is Claude Opus 4.1 better than Qwen2.5 32B Instruct?

Claude Opus 4.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.0 to 30.1 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5 32B Instruct costs 24× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.1 or Qwen2.5 32B Instruct?

Qwen2.5 32B Instruct is cheaper. It lists at $0.70 per million input tokens and $2.80 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.1 lists at $15 and $75.

### Is Claude Opus 4.1 or Qwen2.5 32B Instruct better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 44.4 versus 38.7 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 4.1 does, with 200K tokens against 131K.

### How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.1 and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct share?

4 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.1 has 48 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct has 7.