ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

Claude Opus 4.1 vs QwQ 32B

QwQ 32B comes out ahead, 53 to 49 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.

  1. Anthropic

    Claude Opus 4.1

    Released Aug 5, 2025

    49/100
    • ECI144.1
    • Price$15.00 / $75.00
    • Context200K
    Full specs Remove Claude Opus 4.1
  2. Our pick

    Alibaba (Qwen)

    QwQ 32B

    Released Mar 5, 2025

    53/100
    • ECI137.6
    • Price$0.66 / $1.00
    • Context131K
    Full specs Remove QwQ 32B

  3. Add a model

    Make it a three-way comparison.

01 — Verdict

QwQ 32B is our pick

QwQ 32B is the better all-round choice, scoring 53/100 against Claude Opus 4.1 (49). It leads on price. Claude Opus 4.1 wins on capability, inputs & features and context window. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

  • CapabilityClaude Opus 4.1Capabilities Index (ECI): Claude Opus 4.1 144.1 · QwQ 32B 137.6
  • Lowest priceQwQ 32BQwQ 32B $0.745 · Claude Opus 4.1 $30.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextClaude Opus 4.1Claude Opus 4.1 200,000 · QwQ 32B 131,072 tokens
  • Widest inputsClaude Opus 4.1Claude Opus 4.1: Text, Images, PDFs · QwQ 32B: Text
  • Self-hostingQwQ 32BPublishes downloadable weights
How the score is built
MeasureWeightClaude Opus 4.1QwQ 32B
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%7162
Price25%056
Inputs & features15%7035
Context window10%3224
Overall100%49/10053/100
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 QwQ 32B specifications side by side
SpecificationClaude Opus 4.1AnthropicQwQ 32BAlibaba (Qwen)
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)144.1 (best)137.6
ECI rank#81 of 148 (best)#109 of 148
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions77.3% (best)65.3%
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics12.6%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics68.9% (best)59.2%
SWE-bench VerifiedFixing real GitHub issues73.4%—
Price per million tokens
Input$15.00$0.66 (best)
Output$75.00$1.00 (best)
Cached input——
Blended (3:1)$30.00$0.745 (best)
Long-context rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceMedian of 14 providersMedian of 1 providers
Limits
Context window200,000 tokens (best)131,072 tokens
Max output32,000 tokens (best)8,192 tokens
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesYesNo
PDFsYesNo
AudioNoNo
VideoNoNo
ReasoningYesYes
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputNoNo
Availability
WeightsProprietaryOpen
API model ID——
API providers14 (best)1
ReleasedAug 5, 2025Mar 5, 2025
Knowledge cutoffMar 31, 2025Apr 2024
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
  • QwQ 32B$8.60
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Claude Opus 4.1 or QwQ 32B?

QwQ 32B is the better all-round choice, scoring 53/100 against Claude Opus 4.1 (49). It leads on price. Claude Opus 4.1 wins on capability, inputs & features and context window. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.1 or QwQ 32B?

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). 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).

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 QwQ 32B 137.6 (#109 of 148). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (141.6–146.0 vs 133.1–141.7), so treat the gap as small. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — Claude Opus 4.1 77.3%, QwQ 32B 65.3%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — Claude Opus 4.1 68.9%, QwQ 32B 59.2%.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for QwQ 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. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 4.1 has the largest context window at 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 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Claude Opus 4.1 accepts text, images and PDFs; QwQ 32B accepts text. 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 is proprietary.

Which is newer?

Claude Opus 4.1 is the newest, released Aug 5, 2025. QwQ 32B came out Mar 5, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Claude Opus 4.1 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.

05 — Keep comparing

Related comparisons