QwQ 32B vs Claude Opus 4.1 vs GPT-4.1 mini
GPT-4.1 mini comes out ahead, 60 to 53 and 49 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
Alibaba (Qwen)QwQ 32B
53/100- ECI137.6
- Price$0.66 / $1.00
- Context131K
AnthropicClaude Opus 4.1
49/100- ECI144.1
- Price$15.00 / $75.00
- Context200K
- Our pick
OpenAIGPT-4.1 mini
60/100- ECI135.0
- Price$0.40 / $1.60
- Context1.05M
GPT-4.1 mini is our pick
GPT-4.1 mini is the better all-round choice, scoring 60/100 against QwQ 32B (53) and Claude Opus 4.1 (49). It leads on context window. Claude Opus 4.1 wins on capability. 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 · GPT-4.1 mini 135.0
- Lowest priceGPT-4.1 miniGPT-4.1 mini $0.70 · QwQ 32B $0.745 · Claude Opus 4.1 $30.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextGPT-4.1 miniGPT-4.1 mini 1,047,576 · Claude Opus 4.1 200,000 · QwQ 32B 131,072 tokens
- Widest inputsClaude Opus 4.1 and GPT-4.1 miniQwQ 32B: Text · Claude Opus 4.1: Text, Images, PDFs · GPT-4.1 mini: Text, Images, PDFs
- Self-hostingQwQ 32BPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | QwQ 32B | Claude Opus 4.1 | GPT-4.1 mini |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI) | 50% | 62 | 71 | 59 |
| Price | 25% | 56 | 0 | 57 |
| Inputs & features | 15% | 35 | 70 | 70 |
| Context window | 10% | 24 | 32 | 61 |
| Overall | 100% | 53/100 | 49/100 | 60/100 |
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | QwQ 32BAlibaba (Qwen) | Claude Opus 4.1Anthropic | GPT-4.1 miniOpenAI |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 137.6 | 144.1 (best) | 135.0 |
| ECI rank | #109 of 148 | #81 of 148 (best) | #115 of 148 |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | 65.3% | 77.3% (best) | 65.9% |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics | — | 12.6% (best) | 6.7% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | 59.2% | 68.9% (best) | 44.7% |
| SWE-bench VerifiedFixing real GitHub issues | — | 73.4% | — |
| SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions | — | — | 12.7% |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.66 | $15.00 | $0.40 (best) |
| Output | $1.00 (best) | $75.00 | $1.60 |
| Cached input | — | — | $0.10 |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.745 | $30.00 | $0.70 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 1 providers | Median of 14 providers | Official OpenAI API |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 131,072 tokens | 200,000 tokens | 1,047,576 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 8,192 tokens | 32,000 tokens | 32,768 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes | Yes |
| PDFs | No | Yes | Yes |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes | No |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No | Yes |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Open | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| API model ID | — | — | gpt-4.1-mini |
| API providers | 1 | 14 | 24 (best) |
| Released | Mar 5, 2025 | Aug 5, 2025 | Apr 14, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Apr 2024 | 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.
- QwQ 32B$8.60
- Claude Opus 4.1$300.00
- GPT-4.1 mini$7.20
Which should you choose?
Which is better: QwQ 32B, Claude Opus 4.1 or GPT-4.1 mini?
GPT-4.1 mini is the better all-round choice, scoring 60/100 against QwQ 32B (53) and Claude Opus 4.1 (49). It leads on context window. Claude Opus 4.1 wins on capability. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
Which is cheaper, QwQ 32B, Claude Opus 4.1 or GPT-4.1 mini?
GPT-4.1 mini is cheaper at $0.40 input / $1.60 output per million tokens (official OpenAI API price). QwQ 32B costs $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 $0.70 per million tokens for GPT-4.1 mini versus $0.745 for QwQ 32B (1.1× as much) and $30.00 for Claude Opus 4.1 (43× 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), QwQ 32B 137.6 (#109 of 148) and GPT-4.1 mini 135.0 (#115 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%, GPT-4.1 mini 65.9%, QwQ 32B 65.3%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — Claude Opus 4.1 68.9%, QwQ 32B 59.2%, GPT-4.1 mini 44.7%.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for QwQ 32B and GPT-4.1 mini 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. All three support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
GPT-4.1 mini has the largest context window at 1,047,576 tokens, against 200,000 for Claude Opus 4.1 and 131,072 for QwQ 32B. Maximum output per response: QwQ 32B up to 8,192, Claude Opus 4.1 up to 32,000, GPT-4.1 mini up to 32,768 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
QwQ 32B accepts text; Claude Opus 4.1 accepts text, images and PDFs; GPT-4.1 mini accepts text, images and PDFs. 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 GPT-4.1 mini is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Claude Opus 4.1 is the newest, released Aug 5, 2025. GPT-4.1 mini came out Apr 14, 2025; QwQ 32B came out Mar 5, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: QwQ 32B Apr 2024, Claude Opus 4.1 Mar 31, 2025, GPT-4.1 mini 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.
