Claude Opus 4.1 vs QwQ 32B vs o3-pro
Too close to call on our weighted score (QwQ 32B 53, o3-pro 51, Claude Opus 4.1 49). The right pick depends on what you value most.
AnthropicClaude Opus 4.1
49/100- ECI144.1
- Price$15.00 / $75.00
- Context200K
Alibaba (Qwen)QwQ 32B
53/100- ECI137.6
- Price$0.66 / $1.00
- Context131K
OpenAIo3-pro
51/100- ECI147.4
- Price$20.00 / $80.00
- Context200K
Too close to call
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 2 points (QwQ 32B 53/100, o3-pro 51/100, Claude Opus 4.1 49/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: o3-pro for raw capability and QwQ 32B on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
- Capabilityo3-proCapabilities Index (ECI): o3-pro 147.4 · Claude Opus 4.1 144.1 · QwQ 32B 137.6
- Lowest priceQwQ 32BQwQ 32B $0.745 · Claude Opus 4.1 $30.00 · o3-pro $35.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextClaude Opus 4.1 and o3-proClaude Opus 4.1 200,000 · o3-pro 200,000 · QwQ 32B 131,072 tokens
- Widest inputsClaude Opus 4.1Claude Opus 4.1: Text, Images, PDFs · QwQ 32B: Text · o3-pro: Text, Images
- Self-hostingQwQ 32BPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | Claude Opus 4.1 | QwQ 32B | o3-pro |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI) | 50% | 71 | 62 | 75 |
| Price | 25% | 0 | 56 | 0 |
| Inputs & features | 15% | 70 | 35 | 70 |
| Context window | 10% | 32 | 24 | 32 |
| Overall | 100% | 49/100 | 53/100 | 51/100 |
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Claude Opus 4.1Anthropic | QwQ 32BAlibaba (Qwen) | o3-proOpenAI |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 144.1 | 137.6 | 147.4 (best) |
| ECI rank | #81 of 148 | #109 of 148 | #60 of 148 (best) |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | 77.3% (best) | 65.3% | — |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics | 12.6% | — | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | 68.9% (best) | 59.2% | — |
| SWE-bench VerifiedFixing real GitHub issues | 73.4% | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $15.00 | $0.66 (best) | $20.00 |
| Output | $75.00 | $1.00 (best) | $80.00 |
| Cached input | — | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $30.00 | $0.745 (best) | $35.00 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 14 providers | Median of 1 providers | Official OpenAI API |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 200,000 tokens (best) | 131,072 tokens | 200,000 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 32,000 tokens | 8,192 tokens | 100,000 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | No | Yes |
| PDFs | Yes | No | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes | Yeslow · medium · high |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No | Yes |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Proprietary | Open | Proprietary |
| API model ID | — | — | o3-pro |
| API providers | 14 (best) | 1 | 6 |
| Released | Aug 5, 2025 | Mar 5, 2025 | Jun 10, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Mar 31, 2025 | Apr 2024 | May 2024 |
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
- QwQ 32B$8.60
- o3-pro$360.00
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Claude Opus 4.1, QwQ 32B or o3-pro?
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 2 points (QwQ 32B 53/100, o3-pro 51/100, Claude Opus 4.1 49/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: o3-pro for raw capability and QwQ 32B on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.1, QwQ 32B or o3-pro?
QwQ 32B is cheaper at $0.66 input / $1.00 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). Claude Opus 4.1 costs $15.00 input / $75.00 output per million tokens (median across 14 API providers); o3-pro costs $20.00 input / $80.00 output per million tokens (official OpenAI API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.745 per million tokens for QwQ 32B versus $30.00 for Claude Opus 4.1 (40× as much) and $35.00 for o3-pro (47× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
o3-pro scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): o3-pro 147.4 (#60 of 148), Claude Opus 4.1 144.1 (#81 of 148) and QwQ 32B 137.6 (#109 of 148). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (145.8–149.7 vs 141.6–146.0), so treat the gap as small.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for QwQ 32B and o3-pro yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, o3-pro 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?
Claude Opus 4.1 and o3-pro have the largest context windows (200,000 and 200,000 tokens), against 131,072 for QwQ 32B. Maximum output per response: Claude Opus 4.1 up to 32,000, QwQ 32B up to 8,192, o3-pro up to 100,000 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Claude Opus 4.1 accepts text, images and PDFs; QwQ 32B accepts text; o3-pro accepts text and images. Claude Opus 4.1 handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
QwQ 32B publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Claude Opus 4.1 and o3-pro is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Claude Opus 4.1 is the newest, released Aug 5, 2025. o3-pro came out Jun 10, 2025; QwQ 32B came out Mar 5, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Claude Opus 4.1 Mar 31, 2025, QwQ 32B Apr 2024, o3-pro May 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.
Related comparisons
- Claude Opus 4.1 vs Gemini 2.5 ProGoogle · ECI 145.3
- Claude Opus 4.1 vs Qwen3 MaxAlibaba (Qwen) · ECI 142.4
- Claude Opus 4.1 vs DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32BDeepSeek · ECI 137.4
- QwQ 32B vs GPT-4.1 miniOpenAI · ECI 135.0
- QwQ 32B vs DeepSeek-R1DeepSeek · ECI 139.0
- QwQ 32B vs Mistral Medium 3Mistral AI · ECI 134.1
