# Claude Opus 5.5 vs Qwen2.5-Coder-32B

> Claude Opus 5.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.6 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5-Coder-32B costs 11× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 5.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/claude-opus-5-5-vs-qwen2-5-coder-32b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 13

## Summary

- They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 5.5 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 reasoning, where Claude Opus 5.5 leads 80.2 to 21.2.
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B is cheaper at $0.66 / $1 per million input/output tokens, against $4 / $20 for Claude Opus 5.5.
- Claude Opus 5.5 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 33K.
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Claude Opus 5.5 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 68.6 | 33.4 |
| Rank | 3 | 245 |
| Context | 1M | 33K |
| Input $/M | $4 | $0.66 |
| Output $/M | $20 | $1 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Claude Opus 5.5: 71.9 (#3)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 22.6 (#333)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1547 | 1276 |
| FrontierCode | 54.6% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | — | 9% |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 16.4% |
| CursorBench | 57.8% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1813 | — |
| FrontierSWE | 62.3% | — |
| SciCode | 66.9% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 49% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 56.9% |
| MirrorCode | 77.4% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 58% |
| ALE-Bench | 2,147 | — |
| HumanEval+ | — | 87.2% |
| MBPP+ | — | 77% |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Claude Opus 5.5: 45.3 (#15)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: —

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 73.5% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 30.6% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 9,235 | — |

## Reasoning

- Claude Opus 5.5: 80.2 (#3)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 21.2 (#225)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1535 | 1251 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 167.33 | 119.49 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 93.3% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 88.5% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 98.5% | — |
| CritPt | 31.7% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 71.4% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 42.1% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 71% | — |
| DTBench | 98.9% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 49.9% |
| LMCA | 68.2% | — |
| HellaSwag | — | 83% |
| LiveBench | — | 46.2% |
| WinoGrande | — | 80.8% |

## Math

- Claude Opus 5.5: 91.8 (#3)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.3 (#204)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1506 | 1251 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 91.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 95% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | — |
| ProofBench | 100% | — |
| LiveBench Math | — | 46.6% |
| FrontierMath Erdős | 2.9% | — |
| GSM8K | — | 93% |

## Knowledge

- Claude Opus 5.5: 66.4 (#10)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.4 (#203)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1547 | 1221 |
| GPQA Diamond | 90.6% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 72.2% | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 70.5% |
| MMLU | — | 79.1% |

## Multimodal

- Claude Opus 5.5: 57.8 (#1)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: —

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1321 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 51.2% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 83.3% | — |

## Multilingual

- Claude Opus 5.5: 59.1 (#2)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 37.8 (#235)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1507 | 1205 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1588 | 1222 |
| LMArena Russian | 1520 | 1228 |
| LMArena French | 1514 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1507 | — |

## Instruction Following

- Claude Opus 5.5: 80.0 (#3)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 61.4 (#245)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1537 | 1223 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 58.7% |

## Long Context

- Claude Opus 5.5: 47.1 (#19)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 38.0 (#208)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1532 | 1251 |

## Writing & Preference

- Claude Opus 5.5: 78.2 (#3)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 41.6 (#240)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1515 | 1230 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1533 | 1174 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1499 | 1222 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2050 | — |
| LiveBench Language | — | 23.3% |

## FAQ

### Is Claude Opus 5.5 better than Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?

Claude Opus 5.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.6 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5-Coder-32B costs 11× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 5.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 5.5 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 Opus 5.5 lists at $4 and $20.

### Is Claude Opus 5.5 or Qwen2.5-Coder-32B better for coding?

Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 71.9 versus 22.6 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 5.5 does, with 1M tokens against 33K.

### How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 5.5 and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B share?

13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 5.5 has 44 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has 31.