Pairwise benchmark snapshot · Aug 16, 2026

Claude Opus 4.6 vs Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B benchmark

Name: Claude Opus 4.6 vs Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B AI benchmark comparison
Creator: CompareLLM
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This page compares Claude Opus 4.6 (Anthropic) and Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B (Alibaba) using the latest snapshots we have as of Aug 16, 2026. On preference Elo, Claude Opus 4.6 is ahead by 149 points (1,574 vs 1,425; seed-bootstrap (Aug 1, 2026)). On SWE-bench coding, Claude Opus 4.6 resolves 75.9% versus 65.2% (seed-bootstrap (Aug 1, 2026)). Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B streams faster (110 tok/s) while Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B is the cheaper output token ($0.72/1M). Claude Opus 4.6 has the larger context window (1M tokens). Every cell below is a dated snapshot from a named public source — we do not invent missing scores, and we do not run SWE-bench ourselves.

Share Analysis:

WhatsApp Telegram X / Post LinkedIn Reddit

Anthropic

Claude Opus 4.6

Follow-on Opus release. Slightly behind 4.5 on official SWE-bench bash-only in the last published sweep; stronger long-horizon agent traces.

Elo 1,574$25/1M out

Alibaba

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B

Alibaba dedicated open-weight code generation model with near-frontier SWE-bench Verified coding capability.

Elo 1,425$0.72/1M out

Swap or Add Any Model to this Matchup

Instant pairwise benchmark recalculation across 400+ LLMs

Model A

Model B

Quick vs:vs Claude Opus 4.5 vs Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs Claude 3.7 Sonnet vs GPT-5

Interactive Comparison Diagram

Matchup Breakdown

Tug-of-War Matchup Matrix

Category wins across intelligence, speed, and pricing efficiency.

Claude Opus 4.6 (6)vsQwen 2.5 Coder 32B (4)

Claude Opus 4.6: 6W (60%)Overall: Claude Opus 4.6Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B: 4W (40%)

← Claude Opus 4.6Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B →

Claude Opus 4.6 (5/5)

Intelligence & Reasoning

Preference Elo, Coding proficiency, SWE-bench & LiveBench accuracy

Preference Elo

1,574vs1,425

Coding Elo

1,570vs1,495

SWE-bench

75.9%vs65.2%

LiveBench

72%vs64.8%

GPQA Diamond

84.8%vs74%

Claude Opus 4.6: 5WQwen 2.5 Coder 32B: 0W

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B (2/2)

Speed & Latency

Generation throughput and time to first token responsiveness

Output speed

64 tok/svs110 tok/s

Time to first token

360 msvs180 ms

Claude Opus 4.6: 0WQwen 2.5 Coder 32B: 2W

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B (2/3)

Pricing & Capacity

Cost per million tokens and max context window length

Output price

$25/1Mvs$0.72/1M

Input price

$5/1Mvs$0.18/1M

Context window

1Mvs131k

Claude Opus 4.6: 1WQwen 2.5 Coder 32B: 2W

Capability Matchup Radar

Multi-Dimensional Capability Radar

Each spoke is a skill. Farther from the center is better (0–100th percentile). Tap any dot to inspect details.

Tap any node to inspect

Percentile 0–100

Dimensional AdvantageClaude Opus 4.6 4/6

Preference Elo

Claude Opus 4.6

149 pts advantage

Throughput Speed

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B

46 tok/s faster

Price Efficiency

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B

$24.28/1M cheaper

Full Benchmark Score Matrix

—

Elo

High is better

+10%1,574

EloHigh is better

1,425

Code Elo

High is better

+5%1,570

Code EloHigh is better

1,495

LiveBench

High is better

+11%72%

LiveBenchHigh is better

64.8%

SWE-bench

High is better

+16%75.9%

SWE-benchHigh is better

65.2%

GPQA

High is better

+15%84.8%

GPQAHigh is better

74%

TTFT

Low is better

360 ms

TTFTLow is better

180 ms+100%

Speed

High is better

64 tok/s

SpeedHigh is better

110 tok/s+72%

In $

Low is better

$5/1M

In $Low is better

$0.18/1M+2678%

Out $

Low is better

$25/1M

Out $Low is better

$0.72/1M+3372%

Context

High is better

+663%1M

ContextHigh is better

131k

Interactive Simulator

Workload Cost & Savings Calculator

Simulate monthly production API costs based on published $/1M tokens.

Save up to 97% with Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B

Monthly Volume50M tokens/mo

Quick Presets:

Token Ratio (In vs Out)70% In / 30% Out

RAG / Search (10% out)Coding / Chat (50% out)

Claude Opus 4.6$550.00 / mo

In: $175.00Out: $375.00

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B$17.10 / mo

In: $6.30Out: $10.80

Estimated Cost Delta

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B is estimated to save $532.90/month ($6,395/year).

Based on 50M tokens (30% gen)

Key Selection Recommendations

1
Claude Opus 4.6:Pick Claude Opus 4.6 when repo-level coding accuracy is the constraint.
2
Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B:Pick Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B when you are optimizing output cost.
3
Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B:Pick Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B when time-to-first-token matters more than peak Elo.

Recommended Workload Routing

Repo / coding agentsClaude Opus 4.6

Higher SWE-bench (75.9%).

High-volume chatQwen 2.5 Coder 32B

Lower output list price ($0.72/1M).

Voice / low-latency UIQwen 2.5 Coder 32B

Lower TTFT (180 ms).

Long-document RAGClaude Opus 4.6

Larger window (1M).

Screenshots / visionClaude Opus 4.6

Claude Opus 4.6 is the side marked multimodal in the catalog.

Target Workload	Recommended Pick	Evaluation Rationale
Repo / coding agents	Claude Opus 4.6	Higher SWE-bench (75.9%).
High-volume chat	Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B	Lower output list price ($0.72/1M).
Voice / low-latency UI	Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B	Lower TTFT (180 ms).
Long-document RAG	Claude Opus 4.6	Larger window (1M).
Screenshots / vision	Claude Opus 4.6	Claude Opus 4.6 is the side marked multimodal in the catalog.

Related Editorial Dispatches & Benchmark Notes

View all news

launchMay 10, 2026

Claude Opus 4.6: the May follow-on that still shows up in old bookmarks

Slightly behind 4.5 on one official SWE-bench sweep; stronger long-horizon traces. We keep the row for old vs URLs.

Community Sentiment

Cast Your Matchup Vote

0 total votes

Community Discussions (0)

No comments posted on this matchup yet. Be the first to share an evaluation note!

Share card

The real PNG is generated at /compare/claude-opus-4-6-vs-qwen-2-5-coder-32b/opengraph-image for crawlers.

PNG

CompareLLM Matrix

Verified head-to-head card

LIVE

Anthropic

Claude Opus 4.6

Elo 1,574

LiveBench72%

SWE-bench75.9%

Speed64 tok/s

Output cost$25/1M

Alibaba

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B

Elo 1,425

LiveBench64.8%

SWE-bench65.2%

Speed110 tok/s

Output cost$0.72/1M

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is better overall, Claude Opus 4.6 or Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B?: Claude Opus 4.6 has the higher preference Elo in our latest snapshot (1,574). “Better” still depends on coding, price, and latency — see the table.
Which is better at coding, Claude Opus 4.6 or Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B?: Claude Opus 4.6 leads SWE-bench at 75.9% vs 65.2%. SWE-bench is one harness, not your repo.
Which is cheaper to run in production?: Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B output tokens are $0.72/1M versus $25/1M. Input prices and retry rates still move the real bill.
Which is faster, Claude Opus 4.6 or Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B?: Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B has the lower time-to-first-token (180 ms vs 360 ms). Tokens/sec is a separate column if you care about long completions.
Which has the larger context window?: Claude Opus 4.6 accepts 1M tokens versus 131k.
Can I self-host either model?: Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B is marked open-weights in our catalog. The other side is a closed API. Check the provider license before you ship weights.
Are these scores from CompareLLM’s own evals?: No. V1 aggregates public leaderboards (and optional first-party latency pings). Each cell names its source and date. Read /methodology.
What does preference Elo mean on this page?: Preference Elo is a crowd vote from LMArena / Arena. People see two hidden answers and pick the one they like more. The model that wins more often gets a higher Elo. That means people preferred it — not that it passed a school test. It is not SWE-bench, not accuracy, and not a number we invent. Claude Opus 4.6 and Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B Elo cells are dated snapshots from the named source — we do not compute Arena ourselves.

Similar Head-to-Head Comparisons

All Claude Opus 4.6 matchups →|All Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B matchups →

Claude Opus 4.6 vs Claude Opus 4.5 (previous opus)Claude Opus 4.6 vs Claude Opus 4.8 (next opus)Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B vs Qwen 2.5 Plus (previous qwen)Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B vs Qwen3 235B (next qwen)Claude Sonnet 5 vs Claude Opus 4.6 Claude Fable 5 vs Claude Opus 4.6

Claude Opus 4.6 vs Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B benchmark

Interactive Comparison Diagram

Matchup Breakdown

Tug-of-War Matchup Matrix

Category wins across intelligence, speed, and pricing efficiency.

Claude Opus 4.6 (6)vsQwen 2.5 Coder 32B (4)

Claude Opus 4.6: 6W (60%)Overall: Claude Opus 4.6Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B: 4W (40%)

← Claude Opus 4.6Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B →

Claude Opus 4.6 (5/5)

Intelligence & Reasoning

Preference Elo, Coding proficiency, SWE-bench & LiveBench accuracy

Preference Elo

1,574vs1,425

Coding Elo

1,570vs1,495

SWE-bench

75.9%vs65.2%

LiveBench

72%vs64.8%

GPQA Diamond

84.8%vs74%

Claude Opus 4.6: 5WQwen 2.5 Coder 32B: 0W

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B (2/2)

Speed & Latency

Generation throughput and time to first token responsiveness

Output speed

64 tok/svs110 tok/s

Time to first token

360 msvs180 ms

Claude Opus 4.6: 0WQwen 2.5 Coder 32B: 2W

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B (2/3)

Pricing & Capacity

Cost per million tokens and max context window length

Output price

$25/1Mvs$0.72/1M

Input price

$5/1Mvs$0.18/1M

Context window

1Mvs131k

Claude Opus 4.6: 1WQwen 2.5 Coder 32B: 2W

Recommended Workload Routing

Repo / coding agentsClaude Opus 4.6

Higher SWE-bench (75.9%).

High-volume chatQwen 2.5 Coder 32B

Lower output list price ($0.72/1M).

Voice / low-latency UIQwen 2.5 Coder 32B

Lower TTFT (180 ms).

Long-document RAGClaude Opus 4.6

Larger window (1M).

Screenshots / visionClaude Opus 4.6

Claude Opus 4.6 is the side marked multimodal in the catalog.

Target Workload	Recommended Pick	Evaluation Rationale
Repo / coding agents	Claude Opus 4.6	Higher SWE-bench (75.9%).
High-volume chat	Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B	Lower output list price ($0.72/1M).
Voice / low-latency UI	Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B	Lower TTFT (180 ms).
Long-document RAG	Claude Opus 4.6	Larger window (1M).
Screenshots / vision	Claude Opus 4.6	Claude Opus 4.6 is the side marked multimodal in the catalog.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is better overall, Claude Opus 4.6 or Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B?

Claude Opus 4.6 has the higher preference Elo in our latest snapshot (1,574). “Better” still depends on coding, price, and latency — see the table.

Which is better at coding, Claude Opus 4.6 or Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B?

Claude Opus 4.6 leads SWE-bench at 75.9% vs 65.2%. SWE-bench is one harness, not your repo.

Which is cheaper to run in production?

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B output tokens are $0.72/1M versus $25/1M. Input prices and retry rates still move the real bill.

Which is faster, Claude Opus 4.6 or Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B?

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B has the lower time-to-first-token (180 ms vs 360 ms). Tokens/sec is a separate column if you care about long completions.

Which has the larger context window?

Claude Opus 4.6 accepts 1M tokens versus 131k.

Can I self-host either model?

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B is marked open-weights in our catalog. The other side is a closed API. Check the provider license before you ship weights.

Are these scores from CompareLLM’s own evals?

No. V1 aggregates public leaderboards (and optional first-party latency pings). Each cell names its source and date. Read /methodology.

What does preference Elo mean on this page?

Preference Elo is a crowd vote from LMArena / Arena. People see two hidden answers and pick the one they like more. The model that wins more often gets a higher Elo. That means people preferred it — not that it passed a school test. It is not SWE-bench, not accuracy, and not a number we invent. Claude Opus 4.6 and Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B Elo cells are dated snapshots from the named source — we do not compute Arena ourselves.

Swap or Add Any Model to this Matchup

Interactive Comparison Diagram

Tug-of-War Matchup Matrix

Intelligence & Reasoning

Speed & Latency

Pricing & Capacity

Multi-Dimensional Capability Radar

Claude Opus 4.6

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B

Full Benchmark Score Matrix

Workload Cost & Savings Calculator

Key Selection Recommendations

Recommended Workload Routing

Related Editorial Dispatches & Benchmark Notes

Claude Opus 4.6: the May follow-on that still shows up in old bookmarks

Cast Your Matchup Vote

Community Discussions (0)

Share card

CompareLLM Matrix

Claude Opus 4.6

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B

Frequently Asked Questions

Related news

Similar Head-to-Head Comparisons

Swap or Add Any Model to this Matchup

Interactive Comparison Diagram

Tug-of-War Matchup Matrix

Intelligence & Reasoning

Speed & Latency

Pricing & Capacity

Multi-Dimensional Capability Radar

Claude Opus 4.6

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B

Full Benchmark Score Matrix

Workload Cost & Savings Calculator

Key Selection Recommendations

Recommended Workload Routing

Related Editorial Dispatches & Benchmark Notes

Claude Opus 4.6: the May follow-on that still shows up in old bookmarks

Cast Your Matchup Vote

Community Discussions (0)

Share card

CompareLLM Matrix

Claude Opus 4.6

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B

Frequently Asked Questions

Related news

Similar Head-to-Head Comparisons