ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

Claude Opus 4.1 vs DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B

Claude Opus 4.1 comes out ahead, 65 to 47 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.

  1. Our pick

    Anthropic

    Claude Opus 4.1

    Released Aug 5, 2025

    65/100
    • ECI144.1
    • Price$15.00 / $75.00
    • Context200K
    Full specs Remove Claude Opus 4.1

  2. DeepSeek

    DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B

    Released Jan 20, 2025

    47/100
    • ECI137.4
    • Price—
    • Context131K
    Full specs Remove DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B

  3. Add a model

    Make it a three-way comparison.

01 — Verdict

Claude Opus 4.1 is our pick

Claude Opus 4.1 is the better all-round choice, scoring 65/100 against DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B (47). It leads on capability, inputs & features and context window. The score weighs capability 67%, inputs & features 20%, context window 13%.

  • CapabilityClaude Opus 4.1Capabilities Index (ECI): Claude Opus 4.1 144.1 · DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B 137.4
  • Lowest priceClaude Opus 4.1Claude Opus 4.1 $30.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend) · DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B unpriced
  • Longest contextClaude Opus 4.1Claude Opus 4.1 200,000 · DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B 131,072 tokens
  • Widest inputsClaude Opus 4.1Claude Opus 4.1: Text, Images, PDFs · DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B: Text
  • Self-hostingDeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32BPublishes downloadable weights
How the score is built
MeasureWeightClaude Opus 4.1DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)67%7162
Inputs & features20%7010
Context window13%3224
Overall100%65/10047/100

Left out because at least one model lacks the data: price. The remaining weights were rescaled.

02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.

Claude Opus 4.1 vs DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B specifications side by side
SpecificationClaude Opus 4.1AnthropicDeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32BDeepSeek
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)144.1 (best)137.4
ECI rank#81 of 148 (best)#110 of 148
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions77.3% (best)64.1%
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics12.6%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics68.9% (best)55.6%
SWE-bench VerifiedFixing real GitHub issues73.4%—
Price per million tokens
Input$15.00—
Output$75.00—
Cached input——
Blended (3:1)$30.00—
Long-context rateSame rate—
Price sourceMedian of 14 providers—
Limits
Context window200,000 tokens (best)131,072 tokens
Max output32,000 tokens32,768 tokens (best)
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesYesNo
PDFsYesNo
AudioNoNo
VideoNoNo
ReasoningYesYes
Tool callingYesNo
Structured outputNoNo
Availability
WeightsProprietaryOpen
API model ID——
API providers14—
ReleasedAug 5, 2025Jan 20, 2025
Knowledge cutoffMar 31, 2025—
03 — Cost

What would a month cost?

Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.

  • Claude Opus 4.1$300.00
  • DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B—
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Claude Opus 4.1 or DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B?

Claude Opus 4.1 is the better all-round choice, scoring 65/100 against DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B (47). It leads on capability, inputs & features and context window. The score weighs capability 67%, inputs & features 20%, context window 13%.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.1 or DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B?

Claude Opus 4.1 is cheaper at $15.00 input / $75.00 output per million tokens (median across 14 API providers). . At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $30.00 per million tokens for Claude Opus 4.1 versus . DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B has no published per-token price.

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

Claude Opus 4.1 scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): Claude Opus 4.1 144.1 (#81 of 148) and DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B 137.4 (#110 of 148). Their confidence ranges do not overlap (141.6–146.0 vs 130.7–138.7), so the gap is a real one. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — Claude Opus 4.1 77.3%, DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B 64.1%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — Claude Opus 4.1 68.9%, DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B 55.6%.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, Claude Opus 4.1 leads, which tends to carry over to coding, but test on your own codebase. Note that DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B does not support tool calling, which most coding agents need.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 4.1 has the largest context window at 200,000 tokens, against 131,072 for DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B. Maximum output per response: Claude Opus 4.1 up to 32,000, DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B up to 32,768 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Claude Opus 4.1 accepts text, images and PDFs; DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B accepts text. Claude Opus 4.1 handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Claude Opus 4.1 is proprietary.

Which is newer?

Claude Opus 4.1 is the newest, released Aug 5, 2025. DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B came out Jan 20, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Claude Opus 4.1 Mar 31, 2025.

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.

05 — Keep comparing

Related comparisons