Pairwise benchmark snapshot · Aug 17, 2026
In this head-to-head showdown, Claude Opus 4.5 delivers higher overall intelligence and human-preferred responses (Elo 1,568 vs 1,495), while Claude Opus 4.5 leads in SWE-bench software engineering benchmarks (76.8%), while Qwen QwQ 32B is more budget-friendly at $1.2/1M per 1M output tokens. Review the complete breakdown below to determine which model best fits your performance and budget requirements.
10 direct benchmark disciplines evaluated across capability, speed, and cost
Anthropic frontier coding and computer-use model. SWE-bench leader on the official mini-SWE-agent harness in the Feb 2026 refresh.
Alibaba specialized open reasoning model competing with frontier closed reasoning models.
Currently comparing Claude Opus 4.5 vs Qwen QwQ 32B. Alternative family tiers available.
Simulate accuracy gains vs added response time & token cost
Reasoning models “think before answering” by generating internal reasoning tokens. Higher effort improves math, coding, and logic accuracy, but increases response delay and token costs.
Simulate accuracy gains vs added response time & token cost
Reasoning models “think before answering” by generating internal reasoning tokens. Higher effort improves math, coding, and logic accuracy, but increases response delay and token costs.
Δ 73 Arena Elo pts
68 tok/s
$1.2 / 1M output
Relative percentile scores computed across all active models in the benchmark catalog.
Comparing top Western standard models with China's leading frontier rival across 6 skill dimensions. Tap any spoke or dot to inspect.
Category wins across reasoning intelligence, generation speed, and token cost.
Preference Elo, Coding proficiency, SWE-bench & LiveBench accuracy
Generation throughput and time to first token responsiveness
Cost per million tokens and max context window length
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Qwen QwQ 32B | Advantage Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preference Elo | +73 | ||
| Coding Elo | +54 | ||
| LiveBench | +3.2% | ||
| SWE-bench | +9.3% | ||
| GPQA Diamond | +0.9% | ||
| Time to first token | +60 ms | ||
| Output speed | 62 tok/s | 68 tok/s | +6 tok/s |
| Input price | $0.3/1M | +$4.7/1M | |
| Output price | $1.2/1M | +$23.8/1M | |
| Context window | +69k |
Simulate monthly production API costs in USD (US Dollar).
Qwen QwQ 32B is estimated to save $521.50/month ($6,258/year).
Higher SWE-bench (76.8%).
Lower output list price ($1.2/1M).
Lower TTFT (320 ms).
Larger window (200k).
Claude Opus 4.5 is the side marked multimodal in the catalog.
| Target Workload | Recommended Pick | Evaluation Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Repo / coding agents | Claude Opus 4.5 | Higher SWE-bench (76.8%). |
| High-volume chat | Qwen QwQ 32B | Lower output list price ($1.2/1M). |
| Voice / low-latency UI | Qwen QwQ 32B | Lower TTFT (320 ms). |
| Long-document RAG | Claude Opus 4.5 | Larger window (200k). |
| Screenshots / vision | Claude Opus 4.5 | Claude Opus 4.5 is the side marked multimodal in the catalog. |
No comments posted on this matchup yet. Be the first to share an evaluation note!
Dynamic OpenGraph banner generated at /compare/claude-opus-4-5-vs-qwq-32b/opengraph-image
Verified Head-to-Head Telemetry