QwQ 32B vs Claude Sonnet 3.7
Too close to call on our weighted score (QwQ 32B 53, Claude Sonnet 3.7 50). The right pick depends on what you value most.
Alibaba (Qwen)QwQ 32B
53/100- ECI137.6
- Price$0.66 / $1.00
- Context131K
AnthropicClaude Sonnet 3.7
50/100- ECI141.2
- Price$3.00 / $15.00
- Context200K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Too close to call
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 3 points (QwQ 32B 53/100, Claude Sonnet 3.7 50/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Claude Sonnet 3.7 for raw capability and QwQ 32B on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
- CapabilityClaude Sonnet 3.7Capabilities Index (ECI): Claude Sonnet 3.7 141.2 · QwQ 32B 137.6
- Lowest priceQwQ 32BQwQ 32B $0.745 · Claude Sonnet 3.7 $6.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextClaude Sonnet 3.7Claude Sonnet 3.7 200,000 · QwQ 32B 131,072 tokens
- Widest inputsClaude Sonnet 3.7QwQ 32B: Text · Claude Sonnet 3.7: Text, Images, PDFs
- Self-hostingQwQ 32BPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | QwQ 32B | Claude Sonnet 3.7 |
|---|---|---|---|
| CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI) | 50% | 62 | 67 |
| Price | 25% | 56 | 13 |
| Inputs & features | 15% | 35 | 70 |
| Context window | 10% | 24 | 32 |
| Overall | 100% | 53/100 | 50/100 |
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | QwQ 32BAlibaba (Qwen) | Claude Sonnet 3.7Anthropic |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 137.6 | 141.2 (best) |
| ECI rank | #109 of 148 | #96 of 148 (best) |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | 65.3% | 79.7% (best) |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | 59.2% (best) | 57.8% |
| SWE-bench VerifiedFixing real GitHub issues | — | 61.0% |
| 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 3 providers |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 131,072 tokens | 200,000 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 8,192 tokens | 64,000 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes |
| PDFs | No | Yes |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| API model ID | — | — |
| API providers | 1 | 3 (best) |
| Released | Mar 5, 2025 | Feb 19, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Apr 2024 | Oct 31, 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 3.7$60.00
Which should you choose?
Which is better: QwQ 32B or Claude Sonnet 3.7?
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 3 points (QwQ 32B 53/100, Claude Sonnet 3.7 50/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Claude Sonnet 3.7 for raw capability and QwQ 32B on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
Which is cheaper, QwQ 32B or Claude Sonnet 3.7?
QwQ 32B is cheaper at $0.66 input / $1.00 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). Claude Sonnet 3.7 costs $3.00 input / $15.00 output per million tokens (median across 3 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 $6.00 for Claude Sonnet 3.7 (8.1× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
Claude Sonnet 3.7 scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): Claude Sonnet 3.7 141.2 (#96 of 148) and QwQ 32B 137.6 (#109 of 148). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (138.7–142.9 vs 133.1–141.7), so treat the gap as small. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — Claude Sonnet 3.7 79.7%, QwQ 32B 65.3%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — QwQ 32B 59.2%, Claude Sonnet 3.7 57.8%.
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 Sonnet 3.7 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 3.7 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 3.7 up to 64,000 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
QwQ 32B accepts text; Claude Sonnet 3.7 accepts text, images and PDFs. Claude Sonnet 3.7 handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
QwQ 32B publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Claude Sonnet 3.7 is proprietary.
Which is newer?
QwQ 32B is the newest, released Mar 5, 2025. Claude Sonnet 3.7 came out Feb 19, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: QwQ 32B Apr 2024, Claude Sonnet 3.7 Oct 31, 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 3.7 vs GPT-4.1OpenAI · ECI 136.8
- Claude Sonnet 3.7 vs Gemini 2.5 ProGoogle · ECI 145.3
