Model Comparison
Claude Opus 4.5 (Reasoning)
vs. Qwen3 32B (Non-reasoning)
Comparing 2 AI models · 12 benchmarks · Anthropic, Alibaba
Recommended Pick
An Claude Opus 4.5 (Reasoning) 11 metric wins Strongest on: Reasoning, Intelligence, Math
Best Value
Qwen3 32B (Non-reasoning)
100.0 value score
32.7 reasoning / $0.26/1M
Lowest Price
Qwen3 32B (Non-reasoning)
$0.15/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Claude Opus 4.5 (Reasoning)
69.5 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
Claude Opus 4.5 (Reasoning)
47.8 coding index
Composite Indices
Higher is better; speed and price are normalized
Standard Benchmarks
Only benchmarks with data are shown
Differences That Matter
Best value
Qwen3 32B (Non-reasoning) has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Price gap
Qwen3 32B (Non-reasoning) is 33.3x cheaper on input tokens than Claude Opus 4.5 (Reasoning).
Speed gap
Qwen3 32B (Non-reasoning) generates about 1.7x as many tokens per second as Claude Opus 4.5 (Reasoning).
Reasoning gap
Claude Opus 4.5 (Reasoning) leads Qwen3 32B (Non-reasoning) by 36.8 points on reasoning.
Top-pick rationale
Claude Opus 4.5 (Reasoning) wins 11 measurable categories, including Reasoning, Intelligence, Math, GPQA.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
Claude Opus 4.5 (Reasoning)
Anthropic
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Qwen3 32B (Non-reasoning)
Alibaba
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | Top Pick An Claude Opus 4.5 (Reasoning) | Al Qwen3 32B (Non-reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $5.00/1M | $0.15/1M |
| Output Cost | $25.00/1M | $0.59/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $10.00/1M | $0.26/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Anthropic | Alibaba |
| Release Date | Nov 24, 2025 | Apr 28, 2025 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 55.6 tok/s | 92.7 tok/s |
| TTFT | 9641ms | 1148ms |
| Latency | 9641ms | 1148ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 5.5 | 100.0 |
| Reasoning Score | 69.5 | 32.7 |
| Intelligence | 49.7 | 14.5 |
| Coding | 47.8 | — |
| Math | 91.3 | 19.7 |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 86.6% | 53.5% |
| MMLU Pro | 89.5% | 72.7% |
| HLE | 28.4% | 4.3% |
| LiveCodeBench | 87.1% | 28.8% |
| MATH 500 | — | 86.9% |
| AIME 2025 | 91.3% | 19.7% |
| AIME (Original) | — | 30.3% |
| SciCode | 49.5% | 28.0% |
| LCR | 74.0% | 0.0% |
| IFBench | 58.0% | 31.5% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 89.5% | — |
| TerminalBench Hard | 47.0% | — |
Key Takeaways
Qwen3 32B (Non-reasoning) offers the best value at $0.15/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
Claude Opus 4.5 (Reasoning) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 69.5 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
Claude Opus 4.5 (Reasoning) reaches a 47.8 coding index, making it the top choice for software development and code generation tasks.
All models support context windows of ∞+ tokens, suitable for processing lengthy documents and maintaining extended conversations.
When to Choose Each Model
Claude Opus 4.5 (Reasoning)
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
- Code generation
- Software development
Qwen3 32B (Non-reasoning)
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
