Claude 3 Opus vs Qwen 2.5 72B
Side-by-side benchmark comparison across coding, math, reasoning, speed, and pricing.
Qwen 2.5 72B by Qwen wins on 11 of 17 benchmarks against Claude 3 Opus by Anthropic, which leads on 6. This head-to-head comparison covers coding, math, reasoning, speed, and pricing metrics from our benchmark data.
Category-by-Category Breakdown
General Intelligence: In general intelligence, Claude 3 Opus scores 1240 on Chatbot Arena ELO compared to Qwen 2.5 72B's 1230, while Qwen 2.5 72B scores 72.0% on MMLU-Pro compared to Claude 3 Opus's 68.0%, while Claude 3 Opus scores 81.0% on TruthfulQA compared to Qwen 2.5 72B's 74.0%.
Coding: In coding, Qwen 2.5 72B scores 80.0% on HumanEval+ compared to Claude 3 Opus's 78.0%, while Qwen 2.5 72B scores 28.0% on SWE-bench Verified compared to Claude 3 Opus's 22.0%, while Qwen 2.5 72B scores 55.5% on LiveCodeBench compared to Claude 3 Opus's 32.0%.
Math: In math, Qwen 2.5 72B scores 83.1% on MATH compared to Claude 3 Opus's 68.0%, while Qwen 2.5 72B scores 91.0% on GSM8K compared to Claude 3 Opus's 88.0%.
Reasoning: In reasoning, Claude 3 Opus scores 59.4% on GPQA Diamond compared to Qwen 2.5 72B's 49.1%, while Qwen 2.5 72B scores 12.0% on ARC-AGI compared to Claude 3 Opus's 8.0%, while Claude 3 Opus scores 86.8% on BBH compared to Qwen 2.5 72B's 84.0%, while Claude 3 Opus scores 90.5% on Winogrande compared to Qwen 2.5 72B's 86.0%.
Context: In context, Claude 3 Opus scores 200K on Context Length compared to Qwen 2.5 72B's 33K.
Pricing Comparison
Claude 3 Opus costs $15.0/1M input tokens and $75.0/1M output tokens, while Qwen 2.5 72B costs $0.36/1M input and $0.40/1M output. Qwen 2.5 72B is the more affordable option for API usage.
Speed Comparison
Claude 3 Opus generates output at 25 tok/s compared to Qwen 2.5 72B's 80 tok/s, and the time to first token is 800 ms for Claude 3 Opus versus 350 ms for Qwen 2.5 72B. Qwen 2.5 72B delivers faster throughput.
Verdict
For developers prioritizing general intelligence, Claude 3 Opus has the edge. For those who value coding and math and affordability and speed, Qwen 2.5 72B is the stronger choice.
View Individual Model Pages
Claude 3 Opus vs Qwen 2.5 72B — FAQ
Which is better, Claude 3 Opus or Qwen 2.5 72B?
Qwen 2.5 72B wins on more benchmarks overall (11 vs 6). However, the best choice depends on your specific needs — each model excels in different areas.
How does Claude 3 Opus compare to Qwen 2.5 72B for coding?
Qwen 2.5 72B is better for coding, scoring 28.0% on SWE-bench Verified compared to 22.0%. SWE-bench tests real-world software engineering by resolving actual GitHub issues.
Is Claude 3 Opus cheaper than Qwen 2.5 72B?
Yes, Qwen 2.5 72B is cheaper. Claude 3 Opus costs $15.0/1M input and $75.0/1M output tokens. Qwen 2.5 72B costs $0.36/1M input and $0.40/1M output tokens.
Which is faster, Claude 3 Opus or Qwen 2.5 72B?
Qwen 2.5 72B is faster, generating output at 80 tok/s compared to 25 tok/s. Faster output speed means shorter wait times for API responses.
What benchmarks does the Claude 3 Opus vs Qwen 2.5 72B comparison cover?
This comparison covers 17 benchmarks including Chatbot Arena ELO, MMLU-Pro, HumanEval+, MATH, TruthfulQA, GPQA Diamond, SWE-bench Verified, Output Speed, and more. Metrics span general intelligence, coding, math, reasoning, speed, and cost categories.