ZMIME
Comparison · 3 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

QwQ 32B vs Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 vs GPT-4.1 mini

GPT-4.1 mini comes out ahead, 60 to 53 and 44 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.

  1. 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 Sonnet 3.5 v2

    Released Oct 22, 2024

    44/100
    • ECI133.5
    • Price$3.00 / $15.00
    • Context200K
    Full specs Remove Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2
  3. Our pick

    OpenAI

    GPT-4.1 mini

    Released Apr 14, 2025

    60/100
    • ECI135.0
    • Price$0.40 / $1.60
    • Context1.05M
    Full specs Remove GPT-4.1 mini
01 — Verdict

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 Sonnet 3.5 v2 (44). It leads on inputs & features and context window. QwQ 32B wins on capability. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

  • CapabilityQwQ 32BCapabilities Index (ECI): QwQ 32B 137.6 · GPT-4.1 mini 135.0 · Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 133.5
  • Lowest priceGPT-4.1 miniGPT-4.1 mini $0.70 · QwQ 32B $0.745 · Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 $6.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextGPT-4.1 miniGPT-4.1 mini 1,047,576 · Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 200,000 · QwQ 32B 131,072 tokens
  • Widest inputsClaude Sonnet 3.5 v2 and GPT-4.1 miniQwQ 32B: Text · Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2: Text, Images, PDFs · GPT-4.1 mini: Text, Images, PDFs
  • Self-hostingQwQ 32BPublishes downloadable weights
How the score is built
MeasureWeightQwQ 32BClaude Sonnet 3.5 v2GPT-4.1 mini
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%625759
Price25%561357
Inputs & features15%356070
Context window10%243261
Overall100%53/10044/10060/100
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 Sonnet 3.5 v2 vs GPT-4.1 mini specifications side by side
SpecificationQwQ 32BAlibaba (Qwen)Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2AnthropicGPT-4.1 miniOpenAI
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)137.6 (best)133.5135.0
ECI rank#109 of 148 (best)#119 of 148#115 of 148
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions65.3%55.3%65.9% (best)
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics——6.7%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics59.2% (best)8.5%44.7%
SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions——12.7%
Price per million tokens
Input$0.66$3.00$0.40 (best)
Output$1.00 (best)$15.00$1.60
Cached input——$0.10
Blended (3:1)$0.745$6.00$0.70 (best)
Long-context rateSame rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceMedian of 1 providersMedian of 1 providersOfficial OpenAI API
Limits
Context window131,072 tokens200,000 tokens1,047,576 tokens (best)
Max output8,192 tokens8,192 tokens32,768 tokens (best)
Inputs and features
TextYesYesYes
ImagesNoYesYes
PDFsNoYesYes
AudioNoNoNo
VideoNoNoNo
ReasoningYesNoNo
Tool callingYesYesYes
Structured outputNoNoYes
Availability
WeightsOpenProprietaryProprietary
API model ID——gpt-4.1-mini
API providers1124 (best)
ReleasedMar 5, 2025Oct 22, 2024Apr 14, 2025
Knowledge cutoffApr 2024Apr 30, 2024Apr 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.

  • QwQ 32B$8.60
  • Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2$60.00
  • GPT-4.1 mini$7.20
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: QwQ 32B, Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 or GPT-4.1 mini?

GPT-4.1 mini is the better all-round choice, scoring 60/100 against QwQ 32B (53) and Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 (44). It leads on inputs & features and context window. QwQ 32B wins on capability. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

Which is cheaper, QwQ 32B, Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 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 Sonnet 3.5 v2 costs $3.00 input / $15.00 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). 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 $6.00 for Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 (8.6× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

QwQ 32B scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): QwQ 32B 137.6 (#109 of 148), GPT-4.1 mini 135.0 (#115 of 148) and Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 133.5 (#119 of 148). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (133.1–141.7 vs 131.2–136.6), so treat the gap as small. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — GPT-4.1 mini 65.9%, QwQ 32B 65.3%, Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 55.3%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — QwQ 32B 59.2%, GPT-4.1 mini 44.7%, Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 8.5%.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for QwQ 32B, Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 and GPT-4.1 mini yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, QwQ 32B 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 Sonnet 3.5 v2 and 131,072 for QwQ 32B. Maximum output per response: QwQ 32B up to 8,192, Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 up to 8,192, GPT-4.1 mini up to 32,768 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

QwQ 32B accepts text; Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 accepts text, images and PDFs; GPT-4.1 mini accepts text, images and PDFs. Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

QwQ 32B publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 and GPT-4.1 mini is proprietary.

Which is newer?

GPT-4.1 mini is the newest, released Apr 14, 2025. QwQ 32B came out Mar 5, 2025; Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 came out Oct 22, 2024. Knowledge cutoff: QwQ 32B Apr 2024, Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 Apr 30, 2024, 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.

05 — Keep comparing

Related comparisons