QwQ 32B vs Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2
QwQ 32B comes out ahead, 53 to 44 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
- Our pick
Alibaba (Qwen)QwQ 32B
53/100- ECI137.6
- Price$0.66 / $1.00
- Context131K
AnthropicClaude Sonnet 3.5 v2
44/100- ECI133.5
- Price$3.00 / $15.00
- Context200K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
QwQ 32B is our pick
QwQ 32B is the better all-round choice, scoring 53/100 against Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 (44). It leads on capability and price. Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 wins on inputs & features and context window. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
- CapabilityQwQ 32BCapabilities Index (ECI): QwQ 32B 137.6 · Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 133.5
- Lowest priceQwQ 32BQwQ 32B $0.745 · Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 $6.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextClaude Sonnet 3.5 v2Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 200,000 · QwQ 32B 131,072 tokens
- Widest inputsClaude Sonnet 3.5 v2QwQ 32B: Text · Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2: Text, Images, PDFs
- Self-hostingQwQ 32BPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | QwQ 32B | Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI) | 50% | 62 | 57 |
| Price | 25% | 56 | 13 |
| Inputs & features | 15% | 35 | 60 |
| Context window | 10% | 24 | 32 |
| Overall | 100% | 53/100 | 44/100 |
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | QwQ 32BAlibaba (Qwen) | Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2Anthropic |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 137.6 (best) | 133.5 |
| ECI rank | #109 of 148 (best) | #119 of 148 |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | 65.3% (best) | 55.3% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | 59.2% (best) | 8.5% |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.66 (best) | $3.00 |
| Output | $1.00 (best) | $15.00 |
| Cached input | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.745 (best) | $6.00 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 1 providers | Median of 1 providers |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 131,072 tokens | 200,000 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 8,192 tokens | 8,192 tokens |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes |
| PDFs | No | Yes |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | No |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| API model ID | — | — |
| API providers | 1 | 1 |
| Released | Mar 5, 2025 | Oct 22, 2024 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Apr 2024 | Apr 30, 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 Sonnet 3.5 v2$60.00
Which should you choose?
Which is better: QwQ 32B or Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2?
QwQ 32B is the better all-round choice, scoring 53/100 against Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 (44). It leads on capability and price. Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 wins on 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 Sonnet 3.5 v2?
QwQ 32B is cheaper at $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 $0.745 per million tokens for QwQ 32B versus $6.00 for Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 (8.1× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
QwQ 32B scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): QwQ 32B 137.6 (#109 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 129.2–137.5), so treat the gap as small. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — QwQ 32B 65.3%, Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 55.3%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — QwQ 32B 59.2%, Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 8.5%.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for QwQ 32B and Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 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. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 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 Sonnet 3.5 v2 up to 8,192 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
QwQ 32B accepts text; Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 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 is proprietary.
Which is newer?
QwQ 32B is the newest, released 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.
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
- Add GPT-4.1 miniThree-way comparison
- 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
- QwQ 32B vs Gemini 2.5 FlashGoogle · ECI 140.8
- Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 vs Gemini 2.0 FlashGoogle · ECI 134.7
- Claude Sonnet 3.5 v2 vs GPT-4.1OpenAI · ECI 136.8
