ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

Claude Sonnet 3.7 vs QwQ 32B

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.

  1. Anthropic

    Claude Sonnet 3.7

    Released Feb 19, 2025

    50/100
    • ECI141.2
    • Price$3.00 / $15.00
    • Context200K
    Full specs Remove Claude Sonnet 3.7

  2. Alibaba (Qwen)

    QwQ 32B

    Released Mar 5, 2025

    53/100
    • ECI137.6
    • Price$0.66 / $1.00
    • Context131K
    Full specs Remove QwQ 32B

  3. Add a model

    Make it a three-way comparison.

01 — Verdict

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 3.7Claude Sonnet 3.7: Text, Images, PDFs · QwQ 32B: Text
  • Self-hostingQwQ 32BPublishes downloadable weights
How the score is built
MeasureWeightClaude Sonnet 3.7QwQ 32B
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%6762
Price25%1356
Inputs & features15%7035
Context window10%3224
Overall100%50/10053/100
02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

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

Claude Sonnet 3.7 vs QwQ 32B specifications side by side
SpecificationClaude Sonnet 3.7AnthropicQwQ 32BAlibaba (Qwen)
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)141.2 (best)137.6
ECI rank#96 of 148 (best)#109 of 148
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions79.7% (best)65.3%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics57.8%59.2% (best)
SWE-bench VerifiedFixing real GitHub issues61.0%—
Price per million tokens
Input$3.00$0.66 (best)
Output$15.00$1.00 (best)
Cached input——
Blended (3:1)$6.00$0.745 (best)
Long-context rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceMedian of 3 providersMedian of 1 providers
Limits
Context window200,000 tokens (best)131,072 tokens
Max output64,000 tokens (best)8,192 tokens
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesYesNo
PDFsYesNo
AudioNoNo
VideoNoNo
ReasoningYesYes
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputNoNo
Availability
WeightsProprietaryOpen
API model ID——
API providers3 (best)1
ReleasedFeb 19, 2025Mar 5, 2025
Knowledge cutoffOct 31, 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.

  • Claude Sonnet 3.7$60.00
  • QwQ 32B$8.60
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Claude Sonnet 3.7 or QwQ 32B?

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, Claude Sonnet 3.7 or QwQ 32B?

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: Claude Sonnet 3.7 up to 64,000, QwQ 32B up to 8,192 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Claude Sonnet 3.7 accepts text, images and PDFs; QwQ 32B accepts text. 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: Claude Sonnet 3.7 Oct 31, 2024, QwQ 32B 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