ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

QwQ 32B vs Claude Opus 4

QwQ 32B comes out ahead, 53 to 48 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.

  1. 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

  2. Anthropic

    Claude Opus 4

    Released May 22, 2025

    48/100
    • ECI142.7
    • Price$15.00 / $75.00
    • Context200K
    Full specs Remove Claude Opus 4

  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 (48). It leads on price. Claude Opus 4 wins on capability, inputs & features and context window. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

  • CapabilityClaude Opus 4Capabilities Index (ECI): Claude Opus 4 142.7 · QwQ 32B 137.6
  • Lowest priceQwQ 32BQwQ 32B $0.745 · Claude Opus 4 $30.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextClaude Opus 4Claude Opus 4 200,000 · QwQ 32B 131,072 tokens
  • Widest inputsClaude Opus 4QwQ 32B: Text · Claude Opus 4: Text, Images, PDFs
  • Self-hostingQwQ 32BPublishes downloadable weights
How the score is built
MeasureWeightQwQ 32BClaude Opus 4
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%6269
Price25%560
Inputs & features15%3570
Context window10%2432
Overall100%53/10048/100
02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

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

QwQ 32B vs Claude Opus 4 specifications side by side
SpecificationQwQ 32BAlibaba (Qwen)Claude Opus 4Anthropic
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)137.6142.7 (best)
ECI rank#109 of 148#87 of 148 (best)
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions65.3%76.3% (best)
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics59.2%64.4% (best)
SWE-bench VerifiedFixing real GitHub issues—70.7%
Price per million tokens
Input$0.66 (best)$15.00
Output$1.00 (best)$75.00
Cached input——
Blended (3:1)$0.745 (best)$30.00
Long-context rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceMedian of 1 providersMedian of 5 providers
Limits
Context window131,072 tokens200,000 tokens (best)
Max output8,192 tokens32,000 tokens (best)
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesNoYes
PDFsNoYes
AudioNoNo
VideoNoNo
ReasoningYesYes
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputNoNo
Availability
WeightsOpenProprietary
API model ID——
API providers15 (best)
ReleasedMar 5, 2025May 22, 2025
Knowledge cutoffApr 2024Mar 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.

  • QwQ 32B$8.60
  • Claude Opus 4$300.00
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: QwQ 32B or Claude Opus 4?

QwQ 32B is the better all-round choice, scoring 53/100 against Claude Opus 4 (48). It leads on price. Claude Opus 4 wins on capability, inputs & features and context window. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

Which is cheaper, QwQ 32B or Claude Opus 4?

QwQ 32B is cheaper at $0.66 input / $1.00 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). 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 $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) and QwQ 32B 137.6 (#109 of 148). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (140.2–144.2 vs 133.1–141.7), so treat the gap as small. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — Claude Opus 4 76.3%, QwQ 32B 65.3%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — Claude Opus 4 64.4%, 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 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 has the largest context window at 200,000 tokens, against 131,072 for QwQ 32B. Maximum output per response: QwQ 32B up to 8,192, Claude Opus 4 up to 32,000 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

QwQ 32B accepts text; Claude Opus 4 accepts text, images and PDFs. Claude Opus 4 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 is proprietary.

Which is newer?

Claude Opus 4 is the newest, released May 22, 2025. QwQ 32B came out Mar 5, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: QwQ 32B Apr 2024, Claude Opus 4 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