CompareLLM
CompareLLM.ai
Live
LeaderboardModelsCompareStacksBest ofGuidesNewsMethod
…
CompareLLM
CompareLLM.ai
Precision Benchmarks

Programmatic, dated AI model benchmarks, head-to-head comparisons, and Stack Engine presets.

Daily ingest · 06:00 UTC

Analytics & Benchmarks

  • AI Model Leaderboard
  • Head-to-Head Compare Hub
  • Models Directory
  • Stack Engine Presets
  • Frontier Models
  • Open Weights Catalog

Guides & Intent Lists

  • Best LLM Lists (2026)
  • Best Coding LLM
  • Best Cheap LLM
  • Fastest Low-Latency LLM
  • Claude vs GPT Benchmark
  • What is Elo?
  • Methodology Guides
  • News & Dispatches

Transparency & API

  • Evaluation Methodology
  • Benchmark Changelog
  • Public JSON API
  • llms.txt Specification
  • Privacy Policy
  • Sign In / Account

© 2026 CompareLLM. Public benchmark data aggregated from Arena Elo, LiveBench, SWE-bench & OpenRouter.

Every score has a dated snapshot.

  1. Home
  2. Comparisons
  3. Claude Opus 5 vs Qwen QwQ 32B

Pairwise benchmark snapshot · Aug 16, 2026

Claude Opus 5 vs Qwen QwQ 32B benchmark

This page compares Claude Opus 5 (Anthropic) and Qwen QwQ 32B (Alibaba) using the latest snapshots we have as of Aug 16, 2026. On preference Elo, Claude Opus 5 is ahead by 129 points (1,624 vs 1,495; seed-bootstrap (Aug 16, 2026)). On SWE-bench coding, Claude Opus 5 resolves 79.2% versus 67.5% (seed-bootstrap (Aug 16, 2026)). Claude Opus 5 streams faster (72 tok/s) while Qwen QwQ 32B is the cheaper output token ($1.2/1M). Claude Opus 5 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.

Quick answer

Claude Opus 5 vs Qwen QwQ 32B is a dated snapshot, not a lab score. Claude Opus 5 leads preference Elo (1,624 vs 1,495). Claude Opus 5 leads SWE-bench coding. Qwen QwQ 32B is the cheaper output token. Elo is crowd preference, not an exam. Pick the column that matches the job.
Share Analysis:
WhatsAppTelegramX / PostLinkedInReddit

Anthropic

Claude Opus 5

Anthropic current default flagship. Official API $5/$25 per 1M tokens and a 1M context window (Anthropic, Jul 24 2026).

Elo 1,624$50/1M out

Alibaba

Qwen QwQ 32B

Alibaba specialized open reasoning model competing with frontier closed reasoning models.

Elo 1,495$1.2/1M 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 4.5vs Claude Opus 4.6vs Claude Sonnet 4.5vs Claude 3.7 Sonnet

Interactive Comparison Diagram

Matchup Breakdown

Tug-of-War Matchup Matrix

Category wins across intelligence, speed, and pricing efficiency.

Claude Opus 5 (8)vsQwen QwQ 32B (2)
Claude Opus 5: 8W (80%)Overall: Claude Opus 5Qwen QwQ 32B: 2W (20%)
← Claude Opus 5Qwen QwQ 32B →
Claude Opus 5 (5/5)

Intelligence & Reasoning

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

Preference Elo
1,624vs1,495
Coding Elo
1,618vs1,520
SWE-bench
79.2%vs67.5%
LiveBench
74.8%vs68%
GPQA Diamond
87.1%vs83.2%
Claude Opus 5: 5WQwen QwQ 32B: 0W
Claude Opus 5 (2/2)

Speed & Latency

Generation throughput and time to first token responsiveness

Output speed
72 tok/svs68 tok/s
Time to first token
310 msvs320 ms
Claude Opus 5: 2WQwen QwQ 32B: 0W
Qwen QwQ 32B (2/3)

Pricing & Capacity

Cost per million tokens and max context window length

Output price
$50/1Mvs$1.2/1M
Input price
$10/1Mvs$0.3/1M
Context window
1Mvs131k
Claude Opus 5: 1WQwen QwQ 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 5 5/6
Preference Elo

Claude Opus 5

129 pts advantage

Throughput Speed

Claude Opus 5

4 tok/s faster

Price Efficiency

Qwen QwQ 32B

$48.80/1M cheaper

Full Benchmark Score Matrix

—
Elo
High is better
+9%1,624
EloHigh is better
1,495
Code Elo
High is better
+6%1,618
Code EloHigh is better
1,520
LiveBench
High is better
+10%74.8%
LiveBenchHigh is better
68%
SWE-bench
High is better
+17%79.2%
SWE-benchHigh is better
67.5%
GPQA
High is better
+5%87.1%
GPQAHigh is better
83.2%
TTFT
Low is better
+3%310 ms
TTFTLow is better
320 ms
Speed
High is better
+6%72 tok/s
SpeedHigh is better
68 tok/s
In $
Low is better
$10/1M
In $Low is better
$0.3/1M+3233%
Out $
Low is better
$50/1M
Out $Low is better
$1.2/1M+4067%
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 QwQ 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 5$1,100.00 / mo
In: $350.00Out: $750.00
Qwen QwQ 32B$28.50 / mo
In: $10.50Out: $18.00
Estimated Cost Delta

Qwen QwQ 32B is estimated to save $1,071.50/month ($12,858/year).

Based on 50M tokens (30% gen)

Key Selection Recommendations

  • 1
    Claude Opus 5:Pick Claude Opus 5 when repo-level coding accuracy is the constraint.
  • 2
    Qwen QwQ 32B:Pick Qwen QwQ 32B when you are optimizing output cost.
  • 3
    Claude Opus 5:Pick Claude Opus 5 when time-to-first-token matters more than peak Elo.

Recommended Workload Routing

Repo / coding agentsClaude Opus 5

Higher SWE-bench (79.2%).

High-volume chatQwen QwQ 32B

Lower output list price ($1.2/1M).

Voice / low-latency UIClaude Opus 5

Lower TTFT (310 ms).

Long-document RAGClaude Opus 5

Larger window (1M).

Screenshots / visionClaude Opus 5

Claude Opus 5 is the side marked multimodal in the catalog.

Target WorkloadRecommended PickEvaluation Rationale
Repo / coding agentsClaude Opus 5Higher SWE-bench (79.2%).
High-volume chatQwen QwQ 32BLower output list price ($1.2/1M).
Voice / low-latency UIClaude Opus 5Lower TTFT (310 ms).
Long-document RAGClaude Opus 5Larger window (1M).
Screenshots / visionClaude Opus 5Claude Opus 5 is the side marked multimodal in the catalog.

Related Editorial Dispatches & Benchmark Notes

View all news
compareAug 10, 2026

Sonnet vs Opus in 2026: same family, different invoice

Usually Sonnet 5 vs Opus 5. Coding delta versus output $/1M. The workhorse question.

compareJul 24, 2026

Claude vs Gemini: coding, Elo, and output price — not a brand mashup

Top Anthropic vs top Google. Usually Opus 5 vs 3.6 Pro. Two different invoices.

compareJul 24, 2026

Claude vs GPT benchmark: this hub always remaps to the current Elo leaders

Not a frozen 2025 article. Today that is usually Opus 5 vs GPT-5.6 Sol. Dated cells, not a brand fight.

launchJul 24, 2026

Claude Opus 5 is Anthropic’s default flagship — how to read it on CompareLLM

Jul 24 2026 official API at $5/$25 and a 1M window. Preference Elo is taste, not a coding exam.

Community Sentiment

Cast Your Matchup Vote

0 total votes

Community Discussions (0)

Sign in to cast your verified vote, bookmark models, and participate in benchmark discussions.Sign In to Post

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-5-vs-qwq-32b/opengraph-image for crawlers.

PNG

CompareLLM Matrix

Verified head-to-head card

LIVE
VS
Anthropic

Claude Opus 5

Elo 1,624
LiveBench74.8%
SWE-bench79.2%
Speed72 tok/s
Output cost$50/1M
Alibaba

Qwen QwQ 32B

Elo 1,495
LiveBench68%
SWE-bench67.5%
Speed68 tok/s
Output cost$1.2/1M

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is better overall, Claude Opus 5 or Qwen QwQ 32B?
Claude Opus 5 has the higher preference Elo in our latest snapshot (1,624). “Better” still depends on coding, price, and latency — see the table.
Which is better at coding, Claude Opus 5 or Qwen QwQ 32B?
Claude Opus 5 leads SWE-bench at 79.2% vs 67.5%. SWE-bench is one harness, not your repo.
Which is cheaper to run in production?
Qwen QwQ 32B output tokens are $1.2/1M versus $50/1M. Input prices and retry rates still move the real bill.
Which is faster, Claude Opus 5 or Qwen QwQ 32B?
Claude Opus 5 has the lower time-to-first-token (310 ms vs 320 ms). Tokens/sec is a separate column if you care about long completions.
Which has the larger context window?
Claude Opus 5 accepts 1M tokens versus 131k.
Can I self-host either model?
Qwen QwQ 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 5 and Qwen QwQ 32B Elo cells are dated snapshots from the named source — we do not compute Arena ourselves.

Related news

  • compare · Aug 10, 2026

    Sonnet vs Opus in 2026: same family, different invoice

  • compare · Jul 24, 2026

    Claude vs Gemini: coding, Elo, and output price — not a brand mashup

  • compare · Jul 24, 2026

    Claude vs GPT benchmark: this hub always remaps to the current Elo leaders

  • launch · Jul 24, 2026

    Claude Opus 5 is Anthropic’s default flagship — how to read it on CompareLLM

Similar Head-to-Head Comparisons

All Claude Opus 5 matchups →|All Qwen QwQ 32B matchups →
Claude Opus 5 vs Claude Opus 4.8 (previous opus)Qwen QwQ 32B vs Qwen3 235B (previous qwen)Qwen QwQ 32B vs Qwen 3 Max (next qwen)Claude Fable 5 vs Claude Opus 5Claude Opus 4.6 vs Claude Opus 5Claude Opus 4.5 vs Claude Opus 5