# Claude Sonnet 4 vs Qwen3 32B

> Claude Sonnet 4 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.6 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3 32B costs 4.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Sonnet 4's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/claude-sonnet-4-vs-qwen3-32b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 24

## Summary

- They share 24 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Sonnet 4 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen3 32B in 1 category; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in long context, where Qwen3 32B leads 43.7 to 33.6.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is Fiction.LiveBench: 46.9% for Claude Sonnet 4 and 74.2% for Qwen3 32B.
- Qwen3 32B is cheaper at $0.70 / $2.80 per million input/output tokens, against $3 / $15 for Claude Sonnet 4.
- Claude Sonnet 4 accepts more context: 200K tokens versus 131K.
- Qwen3 32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Claude Sonnet 4 | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 40.6 | 38.8 |
| Rank | 139 | 166 |
| Context | 200K | 131K |
| Input $/M | $3 | $0.70 |
| Output $/M | $15 | $2.80 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Claude Sonnet 4: 44.0 (#70)
- Qwen3 32B: 37.3 (#184)

| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4 | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Aider Polyglot | 61.3% | 40% |
| SciCode | 40% | 35.4% |
| LMArena Coding | 1414 | 1358 |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 64.9% | — |
| GSO | 4.9% | — |
| WeirdML | 46.1% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 655.35 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Claude Sonnet 4: 38.3 (#29)
- Qwen3 32B: 32.3 (#58)

| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4 | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 48.7% |
| TheAgentCompany | 33.1% | — |
| Cybench | 35% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 46.6% | — |
| OSWorld | 43.9% | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 62% | — |

## Reasoning

- Claude Sonnet 4: 23.0 (#169)
- Qwen3 32B: 19.6 (#233)

| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4 | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 73% | 54.9% |
| CritPt | 0.3% | 0.3% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1372 | 1335 |
| DTBench | 77.1% | 67.5% |
| LMCA | 29% | 17.3% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 141.69 | 138.51 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 5.9% | — |
| SimpleBench | 45.5% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 40% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 5% |
| EnigmaEval | 3.1% | — |
| ForecastBench | 60.2 | — |

## Math

- Claude Sonnet 4: 41.5 (#71)
- Qwen3 32B: 37.9 (#89)

| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4 | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 71.1% | 66.9% |
| LMArena Math | 1375 | 1399 |
| Omni-MATH | 60.2% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 84.4% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 4.1% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 0% | — |

## Knowledge

- Claude Sonnet 4: 41.6 (#99)
- Qwen3 32B: 40.0 (#112)

| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4 | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 79.2% | 65.7% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 10.3% | 5.9% |
| LMArena Expert | 1371 | 1362 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 7.8% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 84.3% | — |
| Confabulations | 13.2% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 70.6% | — |

## Multimodal

- Claude Sonnet 4: 25.6 (#116)
- Qwen3 32B: —

| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4 | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1191 | — |
| GeoBench | 37% | — |
| VPCT | 34% | — |
| MindCube | 44.8% | — |

## Multilingual

- Claude Sonnet 4: 46.9 (#151)
- Qwen3 32B: 45.8 (#162)

| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4 | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1333 | 1317 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1351 | 1357 |
| LMArena German | 1331 | 1341 |
| LMArena Russian | 1355 | 1311 |
| LMArena French | 1364 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1301 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1293 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1356 | — |

## Instruction Following

- Claude Sonnet 4: 71.8 (#141)
- Qwen3 32B: 69.1 (#174)

| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4 | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1375 | 1305 |
| IFEval | 84% | — |

## Long Context

- Claude Sonnet 4: 33.6 (#254)
- Qwen3 32B: 43.7 (#83)

| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4 | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 46.9% | 74.2% |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1398 | 1327 |

## Writing & Preference

- Claude Sonnet 4: 57.3 (#127)
- Qwen3 32B: 53.1 (#158)

| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4 | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1351 | 1340 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1345 | 1297 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1376 | 1331 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 81.4% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1483 | — |
| WildBench | 83.8% | — |

## FAQ

### Is Claude Sonnet 4 better than Qwen3 32B?

Claude Sonnet 4 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.6 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3 32B costs 4.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Sonnet 4's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, Claude Sonnet 4 or Qwen3 32B?

Qwen3 32B is cheaper. It lists at $0.70 per million input tokens and $2.80 per million output tokens; Claude Sonnet 4 lists at $3 and $15.

### Is Claude Sonnet 4 or Qwen3 32B better for coding?

Claude Sonnet 4 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 44.0 versus 37.3 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Sonnet 4 does, with 200K tokens against 131K.

### How many benchmarks do Claude Sonnet 4 and Qwen3 32B share?

24 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Sonnet 4 has 58 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 32B has 26.