o1 vs Claude Opus 4 vs QwQ 32B
QwQ 32B comes out ahead, 53 to 49 and 48 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
OpenAIo1
49/100- ECI141.9
- Price$15.00 / $60.00
- Context200K
AnthropicClaude Opus 4
48/100- ECI142.7
- Price$15.00 / $75.00
- Context200K
- Our pick
Alibaba (Qwen)QwQ 32B
53/100- ECI137.6
- Price$0.66 / $1.00
- Context131K
QwQ 32B is our pick
QwQ 32B is the better all-round choice, scoring 53/100 against o1 (49) and Claude Opus 4 (48). It leads on price. o1 wins on inputs & features. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
- CapabilityClaude Opus 4Capabilities Index (ECI): Claude Opus 4 142.7 · o1 141.9 · QwQ 32B 137.6
- Lowest priceQwQ 32BQwQ 32B $0.745 · o1 $26.25 · Claude Opus 4 $30.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contexto1 and Claude Opus 4o1 200,000 · Claude Opus 4 200,000 · QwQ 32B 131,072 tokens
- Widest inputso1 and Claude Opus 4o1: Text, Images, PDFs · Claude Opus 4: Text, Images, PDFs · QwQ 32B: Text
- Self-hostingQwQ 32BPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | o1 | Claude Opus 4 | QwQ 32B |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI) | 50% | 68 | 69 | 62 |
| Price | 25% | 0 | 0 | 56 |
| Inputs & features | 15% | 80 | 70 | 35 |
| Context window | 10% | 32 | 32 | 24 |
| Overall | 100% | 49/100 | 48/100 | 53/100 |
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | o1OpenAI | Claude Opus 4Anthropic | QwQ 32BAlibaba (Qwen) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 141.9 | 142.7 (best) | 137.6 |
| ECI rank | #92 of 148 | #87 of 148 (best) | #109 of 148 |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | 76.8% (best) | 76.3% | 65.3% |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics | 14.7% | — | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | 73.3% (best) | 64.4% | 59.2% |
| SWE-bench VerifiedFixing real GitHub issues | — | 70.7% | — |
| SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions | 41.1% | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $15.00 | $15.00 | $0.66 (best) |
| Output | $60.00 | $75.00 | $1.00 (best) |
| Cached input | $7.50 | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $26.25 | $30.00 | $0.745 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official OpenAI API | Median of 5 providers | Median of 1 providers |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 200,000 tokens (best) | 200,000 tokens (best) | 131,072 tokens |
| Max output | 100,000 tokens (best) | 32,000 tokens | 8,192 tokens |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | Yes | No |
| PDFs | Yes | Yes | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yeslow · medium · high | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | No | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary | Open |
| API model ID | o1 | — | — |
| API providers | 9 (best) | 5 | 1 |
| Released | Dec 5, 2024 | May 22, 2025 | Mar 5, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Sep 2023 | Mar 31, 2025 | Apr 2024 |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- o1$270.00
- Claude Opus 4$300.00
- QwQ 32B$8.60
Which should you choose?
Which is better: o1, Claude Opus 4 or QwQ 32B?
QwQ 32B is the better all-round choice, scoring 53/100 against o1 (49) and Claude Opus 4 (48). It leads on price. o1 wins on inputs & features. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
Which is cheaper, o1, Claude Opus 4 or QwQ 32B?
QwQ 32B is cheaper at $0.66 input / $1.00 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). o1 costs $15.00 input / $60.00 output per million tokens (official OpenAI API price); Claude Opus 4 costs $15.00 input / $75.00 output per million tokens (median across 5 API providers). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.745 per million tokens for QwQ 32B versus $26.25 for o1 (35× as much) and $30.00 for Claude Opus 4 (40× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
Claude Opus 4 scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): Claude Opus 4 142.7 (#87 of 148), o1 141.9 (#92 of 148) and QwQ 32B 137.6 (#109 of 148). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (140.2–144.2 vs 139.7–143.1), so treat the gap as small. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — o1 76.8%, Claude Opus 4 76.3%, QwQ 32B 65.3%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — o1 73.3%, Claude Opus 4 64.4%, QwQ 32B 59.2%.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for o1 and QwQ 32B yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, Claude Opus 4 leads, which tends to carry over to coding, but test on your own codebase. All three support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
o1 and Claude Opus 4 have the largest context windows (200,000 and 200,000 tokens), against 131,072 for QwQ 32B. Maximum output per response: o1 up to 100,000, Claude Opus 4 up to 32,000, QwQ 32B up to 8,192 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
o1 accepts text, images and PDFs; Claude Opus 4 accepts text, images and PDFs; QwQ 32B accepts text. o1 handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
QwQ 32B publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; o1 and Claude Opus 4 is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Claude Opus 4 is the newest, released May 22, 2025. QwQ 32B came out Mar 5, 2025; o1 came out Dec 5, 2024. Knowledge cutoff: o1 Sep 2023, Claude Opus 4 Mar 31, 2025, QwQ 32B Apr 2024.
How do you decide the winner?
Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Oct 4, 2026.
