# Claude Opus 4.1 vs Qwen2.5-Coder-32B

> Claude Opus 4.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.0 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5-Coder-32B costs 40× 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-coder-32b
- Last updated: 2026-10-12
- Shared benchmarks: 13

## Summary

- They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.1 scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B in 1 category; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in coding, where Claude Opus 4.1 leads 44.4 to 22.6.
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B is cheaper at $0.66 / $1 per million input/output tokens, against $15 / $75 for Claude Opus 4.1.
- Claude Opus 4.1 accepts more context: 200K tokens versus 33K.
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 41.0 | 33.4 |
| Rank | 142 | 245 |
| Context | 200K | 33K |
| Input $/M | $15 | $0.66 |
| Output $/M | $75 | $1 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Claude Opus 4.1: 44.4 (#73)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 22.6 (#333)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1479 | 1276 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 73.3% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | — | 9% |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 16.4% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1390 | — |
| WeirdML | 45.9% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 49% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 56.9% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 58% |
| ALE-Bench | 674.77 | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.34 | — |
| HumanEval+ | — | 87.2% |
| MBPP+ | — | 77% |

## Agentic & Tool Use

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

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| 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-Coder-32B: 21.2 (#225)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1443 | 1251 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 144.12 | 119.49 |
| SimpleBench | 60% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 7% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 7.2% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 7.9% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 42.1% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 21% | — |
| DTBench | 80% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 49.9% |
| LMCA | 37.1% | — |
| ForecastBench | 62 | — |
| HellaSwag | — | 83% |
| LiveBench | — | 46.2% |
| WinoGrande | — | 80.8% |

## Math

- Claude Opus 4.1: 22.3 (#277)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.3 (#204)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1431 | 1251 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 12.6% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 2.4% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 68.9% | — |
| LiveBench Math | — | 46.6% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 7.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | — |
| GSM8K | — | 93% |

## Knowledge

- Claude Opus 4.1: 42.0 (#101)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.4 (#203)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1439 | 1221 |
| GPQA Diamond | 77.3% | — |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 11.5% | — |
| Confabulations | 17.1% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 11.8% | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 70.5% |
| MMLU | — | 79.1% |

## Multimodal

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

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

## Multilingual

- Claude Opus 4.1: 52.0 (#95)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 37.8 (#235)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1405 | 1205 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1427 | 1222 |
| LMArena Russian | 1422 | 1228 |
| LMArena French | 1431 | — |
| LMArena German | 1413 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1378 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1380 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1448 | — |

## Instruction Following

- Claude Opus 4.1: 75.6 (#58)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 61.4 (#245)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1435 | 1223 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 58.7% |

## Long Context

- Claude Opus 4.1: 44.5 (#63)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 38.0 (#208)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1455 | 1251 |

## Writing & Preference

- Claude Opus 4.1: 62.4 (#74)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 41.6 (#240)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1419 | 1230 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1412 | 1174 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1444 | 1222 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 84.7% | — |
| LiveBench Language | — | 23.3% |

## FAQ

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

Claude Opus 4.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.0 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5-Coder-32B costs 40× 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-Coder-32B?

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B is cheaper. It lists at $0.66 per million input tokens and $1 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.1 lists at $15 and $75.

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

Claude Opus 4.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 44.4 versus 22.6 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 4.1 does, with 200K tokens against 33K.

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

13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.1 has 48 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has 31.