Pairwise benchmark snapshot · Aug 17, 2026

Claude Opus 4 vs Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct benchmark

Name: Claude Opus 4 vs Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct AI benchmark comparison
Creator: CompareLLM
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This page compares Claude Opus 4 (Anthropic) and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct (Alibaba) using the latest snapshots we have as of Aug 17, 2026. On preference Elo, Claude Opus 4 is ahead by 65 points (1,490 vs 1,425; lmarena (Aug 17, 2026)). On SWE-bench coding, Claude Opus 4 resolves 72.5% versus 65.2% (swebench (Aug 17, 2026)). Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct wins on output price at $1/1M. Claude Opus 4 has the larger context window (200k 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

First Claude 4 Opus generation. Baseline for opus 4 vs opus 5.

Elo 1,490$75/1M out

Alibaba

Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct

Auto-discovered from OpenRouter (qwen/qwen-2.5-coder-32b-instruct). Preview until a second source matches.

Elo 1,425$1/1M 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 Opus 4.6 vs Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs Claude 3.7 Sonnet

Interactive Comparison Diagram

Matchup Breakdown

Tug-of-War Matchup Matrix

Category wins across intelligence, speed, and pricing efficiency.

Claude Opus 4 (8)vsQwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct (2)

Claude Opus 4: 8W (80%)Overall: Claude Opus 4Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct: 2W (20%)

← Claude Opus 4Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct →

Claude Opus 4 (5/5)

Intelligence & Reasoning

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

Preference Elo

1,490vs1,425

Coding Elo

1,502vs1,495

SWE-bench

72.5%vs65.2%

LiveBench

66.8%vs64.8%

GPQA Diamond

80.4%vs—

Claude Opus 4: 5WQwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct: 0W

Claude Opus 4 (2/2)

Speed & Latency

Generation throughput and time to first token responsiveness

Output speed

58 tok/svs—

Time to first token

390 msvs—

Claude Opus 4: 2WQwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct: 0W

Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct (2/3)

Pricing & Capacity

Cost per million tokens and max context window length

Output price

$75/1Mvs$1/1M

Input price

$15/1Mvs$0.66/1M

Context window

200kvs33k

Claude Opus 4: 1WQwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct: 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 5/6

Preference Elo

Claude Opus 4

65 pts advantage

Throughput Speed

No shared data

Token Price Efficiency

Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct

$74.00/1M cheaper

Full Benchmark Score Matrix

—

Elo

High is better

+5%1,490

EloHigh is better

1,425

Code Elo

High is better

1,502

Code EloHigh is better

1,495

LiveBench

High is better

+3%66.8%

LiveBenchHigh is better

64.8%

SWE-bench

High is better

+11%72.5%

SWE-benchHigh is better

65.2%

GPQA

High is better

80.4%

GPQAHigh is better

—

TTFT

Low is better

390 ms

TTFTLow is better

—

Speed

High is better

58 tok/s

SpeedHigh is better

—

In $

Low is better

$15.00 / 1M

In $Low is better

$0.66 / 1M+2173%

Out $

Low is better

$75.00 / 1M

Out $Low is better

$1.00 / 1M+7400%

Context

High is better

+510%200k

ContextHigh is better

33k

Interactive Simulator (USD)

Workload Cost & Savings Calculator

Simulate monthly production API costs in USD (US Dollar).

Save up to 98% with Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct

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$1,650.00 / mo

In: $525Out: $1,125

Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct$38.10 / mo

In: $23.1Out: $15

Estimated Cost Delta

Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct is estimated to save $1,611.90/month ($19,343/year).

Based on 50M tokens (30% gen)

Key Selection Recommendations

1
Claude Opus 4:Pick Claude Opus 4 when repo-level coding accuracy is the constraint.
2
Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct:Pick Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct when you are optimizing output cost.
3
Claude Opus 4:Pick Claude Opus 4 as the default general assistant.

Recommended Workload Routing

Repo / coding agentsClaude Opus 4

Higher SWE-bench (72.5%).

High-volume chatQwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct

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

Voice / low-latency UIinsufficient data

Need TTFT on both sides.

Long-document RAGClaude Opus 4

Larger window (200k).

Screenshots / visionClaude Opus 4

Claude Opus 4 is the side marked multimodal in the catalog.

Target Workload	Recommended Pick	Evaluation Rationale
Repo / coding agents	Claude Opus 4	Higher SWE-bench (72.5%).
High-volume chat	Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct	Lower output list price ($1/1M).
Voice / low-latency UI	insufficient data	Need TTFT on both sides.
Long-document RAG	Claude Opus 4	Larger window (200k).
Screenshots / vision	Claude Opus 4	Claude Opus 4 is the side marked multimodal in the catalog.

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-vs-qwen-2-5-coder-32b-instruct/opengraph-image for crawlers.

PNG

CompareLLM Matrix

Verified head-to-head card

LIVE

Anthropic

Claude Opus 4

Elo 1,490

LiveBench66.8%

SWE-bench72.5%

Speed58 tok/s

Output cost$75/1M

Alibaba

Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct

Elo 1,425

LiveBench64.8%

SWE-bench65.2%

Speed—

Output cost$1/1M

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is better overall, Claude Opus 4 or Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct?: Claude Opus 4 has the higher preference Elo in our latest snapshot (1,490). “Better” still depends on coding, price, and latency — see the table.
Which is better at coding, Claude Opus 4 or Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct?: Claude Opus 4 leads SWE-bench at 72.5% vs 65.2%. SWE-bench is one harness, not your repo.
Which is cheaper to run in production?: Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct output tokens are $1/1M versus $75/1M. Input prices and retry rates still move the real bill.
Which is faster, Claude Opus 4 or Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct?: We do not have TTFT for both models.
Which has the larger context window?: Claude Opus 4 accepts 200k tokens versus 33k.
Can I self-host either model?: Neither model is marked open-weights here. You are comparing hosted APIs.
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 and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct Elo cells are dated snapshots from the named source — we do not compute Arena ourselves.

Similar Head-to-Head Comparisons

All Claude Opus 4 matchups →|All Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct matchups →

Claude Opus 4 vs Claude 3 Opus (previous opus)Claude Opus 4 vs Claude Opus 4.5 (next opus)Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct vs Qwen 2.5 Plus (next qwen)Qwen 3 Max vs Claude Opus 4 Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs Claude Opus 4 Claude Sonnet 5 vs Claude Opus 4

Claude Opus 4 vs Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct benchmark

Interactive Comparison Diagram

Matchup Breakdown

Tug-of-War Matchup Matrix

Category wins across intelligence, speed, and pricing efficiency.

Claude Opus 4 (8)vsQwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct (2)

Claude Opus 4: 8W (80%)Overall: Claude Opus 4Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct: 2W (20%)

← Claude Opus 4Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct →

Claude Opus 4 (5/5)

Intelligence & Reasoning

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

Preference Elo

1,490vs1,425

Coding Elo

1,502vs1,495

SWE-bench

72.5%vs65.2%

LiveBench

66.8%vs64.8%

GPQA Diamond

80.4%vs—

Claude Opus 4: 5WQwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct: 0W

Claude Opus 4 (2/2)

Speed & Latency

Generation throughput and time to first token responsiveness

Output speed

58 tok/svs—

Time to first token

390 msvs—

Claude Opus 4: 2WQwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct: 0W

Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct (2/3)

Pricing & Capacity

Cost per million tokens and max context window length

Output price

$75/1Mvs$1/1M

Input price

$15/1Mvs$0.66/1M

Context window

200kvs33k

Claude Opus 4: 1WQwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct: 2W

Recommended Workload Routing

Repo / coding agentsClaude Opus 4

Higher SWE-bench (72.5%).

High-volume chatQwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct

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

Voice / low-latency UIinsufficient data

Need TTFT on both sides.

Long-document RAGClaude Opus 4

Larger window (200k).

Screenshots / visionClaude Opus 4

Claude Opus 4 is the side marked multimodal in the catalog.

Target Workload	Recommended Pick	Evaluation Rationale
Repo / coding agents	Claude Opus 4	Higher SWE-bench (72.5%).
High-volume chat	Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct	Lower output list price ($1/1M).
Voice / low-latency UI	insufficient data	Need TTFT on both sides.
Long-document RAG	Claude Opus 4	Larger window (200k).
Screenshots / vision	Claude Opus 4	Claude Opus 4 is the side marked multimodal in the catalog.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is better overall, Claude Opus 4 or Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct?

Claude Opus 4 has the higher preference Elo in our latest snapshot (1,490). “Better” still depends on coding, price, and latency — see the table.

Which is better at coding, Claude Opus 4 or Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct?

Claude Opus 4 leads SWE-bench at 72.5% vs 65.2%. SWE-bench is one harness, not your repo.

Which is cheaper to run in production?

Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct output tokens are $1/1M versus $75/1M. Input prices and retry rates still move the real bill.

Which is faster, Claude Opus 4 or Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct?

We do not have TTFT for both models.

Which has the larger context window?

Claude Opus 4 accepts 200k tokens versus 33k.

Can I self-host either model?

Neither model is marked open-weights here. You are comparing hosted APIs.

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 and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct Elo cells are dated snapshots from the named source — we do not compute Arena ourselves.