Pairwise benchmark snapshot · Aug 17, 2026noindex (thin pair)

Anthropic: Claude Sonnet 5 (batch) vs Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B benchmark

Name: Anthropic: Claude Sonnet 5 (batch) vs Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B AI benchmark comparison
Creator: CompareLLM
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This page compares Anthropic: Claude Sonnet 5 (batch) (Anthropic) and Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B (Alibaba) using the latest snapshots we have as of Aug 17, 2026. Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B wins on output price at $0.72/1M. Anthropic: Claude Sonnet 5 (batch) 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

Anthropic: Claude Sonnet 5 (batch)

Auto-discovered from OpenRouter (anthropic/claude-sonnet-5:batch). Preview until a second source matches.

$5/1M 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 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.

Anthropic: Claude Sonnet 5 (batch) (1)vsQwen 2.5 Coder 32B (9)

Anthropic: Claude Sonnet 5 (batch): 1W (10%)Overall: Qwen 2.5 Coder 32BQwen 2.5 Coder 32B: 9W (90%)

← Anthropic: Claude Sonnet 5 (batch)Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B →

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B (5/5)

Intelligence & Reasoning

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

Preference Elo

—vs1,425

Coding Elo

—vs1,495

SWE-bench

—vs65.2%

LiveBench

—vs64.8%

GPQA Diamond

—vs74%

Anthropic: Claude Sonnet 5 (batch): 0WQwen 2.5 Coder 32B: 5W

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B (2/2)

Speed & Latency

Generation throughput and time to first token responsiveness

Output speed

—vs110 tok/s

Time to first token

—vs180 ms

Anthropic: Claude Sonnet 5 (batch): 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

$5/1Mvs$0.72/1M

Input price

$1/1Mvs$0.18/1M

Context window

1Mvs131k

Anthropic: Claude Sonnet 5 (batch): 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 AdvantageQwen 2.5 Coder 32B 5/6

Preference Elo

No shared data

Throughput Speed

No shared data

Price Efficiency

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B

$4.28/1M cheaper

Full Benchmark Score Matrix

—

Elo

High is better

—

EloHigh is better

1,425

Code Elo

High is better

—

Code EloHigh is better

1,495

LiveBench

High is better

—

LiveBenchHigh is better

64.8%

SWE-bench

High is better

—

SWE-benchHigh is better

65.2%

GPQA

High is better

—

GPQAHigh is better

74%

TTFT

Low is better

—

TTFTLow is better

180 ms

Speed

High is better

—

SpeedHigh is better

110 tok/s

In $

Low is better

$1/1M

In $Low is better

$0.18/1M+456%

Out $

Low is better

$5/1M

Out $Low is better

$0.72/1M+594%

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 84% 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)

Anthropic: Claude Sonnet 5 (batch)$110.00 / mo

In: $35.00Out: $75.00

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 $92.90/month ($1,115/year).

Based on 50M tokens (30% gen)

Key Selection Recommendations

1
Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B:Pick Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B when you are optimizing output cost.
2
Anthropic: Claude Sonnet 5 (batch):Pick Anthropic: Claude Sonnet 5 (batch) for million-token RAG or long-document jobs.

Recommended Workload Routing

Repo / coding agentsinsufficient data

Need SWE-bench on both sides.

High-volume chatQwen 2.5 Coder 32B

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

Voice / low-latency UIinsufficient data

Need TTFT on both sides.

Long-document RAGAnthropic: Claude Sonnet 5 (batch)

Larger window (1M).

Screenshots / visionQwen 2.5 Coder 32B

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B is the side marked multimodal in the catalog.

Target Workload	Recommended Pick	Evaluation Rationale
Repo / coding agents	insufficient data	Need SWE-bench on both sides.
High-volume chat	Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B	Lower output list price ($0.72/1M).
Voice / low-latency UI	insufficient data	Need TTFT on both sides.
Long-document RAG	Anthropic: Claude Sonnet 5 (batch)	Larger window (1M).
Screenshots / vision	Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B	Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B 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-sonnet-5-batch-vs-qwen-2-5-coder-32b/opengraph-image for crawlers.

PNG

CompareLLM Matrix

Verified head-to-head card

LIVE

Anthropic

Anthropic: Claude Sonnet 5 (batch)

Elo n/a

LiveBench—

SWE-bench—

Speed—

Output cost$5/1M

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, Anthropic: Claude Sonnet 5 (batch) or Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B?: We do not have preference Elo for both models, so we do not declare an overall winner. Compare the metrics that exist.
Which is better at coding, Anthropic: Claude Sonnet 5 (batch) or Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B?: SWE-bench is missing for at least one model, so we do not rank coding from a single number.
Which is cheaper to run in production?: Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B output tokens are $0.72/1M versus $5/1M. Input prices and retry rates still move the real bill.
Which is faster, Anthropic: Claude Sonnet 5 (batch) or Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B?: We do not have TTFT for both models.
Which has the larger context window?: Anthropic: Claude Sonnet 5 (batch) 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. Anthropic: Claude Sonnet 5 (batch) 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 Anthropic: Claude Sonnet 5 (batch) matchups →|All Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B matchups →

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B vs Qwen 2.5 Plus (previous qwen)Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B vs Qwen3 235B (next qwen)Claude Opus 4.5 vs Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B Claude Opus 4.6 vs Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B Qwen 3 Max vs Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B

Anthropic: Claude Sonnet 5 (batch) 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.

Anthropic: Claude Sonnet 5 (batch) (1)vsQwen 2.5 Coder 32B (9)

Anthropic: Claude Sonnet 5 (batch): 1W (10%)Overall: Qwen 2.5 Coder 32BQwen 2.5 Coder 32B: 9W (90%)

← Anthropic: Claude Sonnet 5 (batch)Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B →

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B (5/5)

Intelligence & Reasoning

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

Preference Elo

—vs1,425

Coding Elo

—vs1,495

SWE-bench

—vs65.2%

LiveBench

—vs64.8%

GPQA Diamond

—vs74%

Anthropic: Claude Sonnet 5 (batch): 0WQwen 2.5 Coder 32B: 5W

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B (2/2)

Speed & Latency

Generation throughput and time to first token responsiveness

Output speed

—vs110 tok/s

Time to first token

—vs180 ms

Anthropic: Claude Sonnet 5 (batch): 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

$5/1Mvs$0.72/1M

Input price

$1/1Mvs$0.18/1M

Context window

1Mvs131k

Anthropic: Claude Sonnet 5 (batch): 1WQwen 2.5 Coder 32B: 2W

Recommended Workload Routing

Repo / coding agentsinsufficient data

Need SWE-bench on both sides.

High-volume chatQwen 2.5 Coder 32B

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

Voice / low-latency UIinsufficient data

Need TTFT on both sides.

Long-document RAGAnthropic: Claude Sonnet 5 (batch)

Larger window (1M).

Screenshots / visionQwen 2.5 Coder 32B

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B is the side marked multimodal in the catalog.

Target Workload	Recommended Pick	Evaluation Rationale
Repo / coding agents	insufficient data	Need SWE-bench on both sides.
High-volume chat	Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B	Lower output list price ($0.72/1M).
Voice / low-latency UI	insufficient data	Need TTFT on both sides.
Long-document RAG	Anthropic: Claude Sonnet 5 (batch)	Larger window (1M).
Screenshots / vision	Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B	Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B is the side marked multimodal in the catalog.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is better overall, Anthropic: Claude Sonnet 5 (batch) or Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B?

We do not have preference Elo for both models, so we do not declare an overall winner. Compare the metrics that exist.

Which is better at coding, Anthropic: Claude Sonnet 5 (batch) or Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B?

SWE-bench is missing for at least one model, so we do not rank coding from a single number.

Which is cheaper to run in production?

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B output tokens are $0.72/1M versus $5/1M. Input prices and retry rates still move the real bill.

Which is faster, Anthropic: Claude Sonnet 5 (batch) or Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B?

We do not have TTFT for both models.

Which has the larger context window?

Anthropic: Claude Sonnet 5 (batch) 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. Anthropic: Claude Sonnet 5 (batch) and Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B Elo cells are dated snapshots from the named source — we do not compute Arena ourselves.