Claude Opus 4.6 vs Qwen 3 32B
Side-by-side benchmark comparison across coding, math, reasoning, speed, and pricing.
Claude Opus 4.6 by Anthropic wins on 10 of 14 benchmarks against Qwen 3 32B by Qwen, which leads on 4. This head-to-head comparison covers coding, math, reasoning, speed, and pricing metrics from the AI Value Index.
Category-by-Category Breakdown
General Intelligence: In general intelligence, Claude Opus 4.6 scores 1496 on Chatbot Arena ELO compared to Qwen 3 32B's 1250, while Claude Opus 4.6 scores 82.0% on MMLU-Pro compared to Qwen 3 32B's 67.0%.
Coding: In coding, Claude Opus 4.6 scores 93.5% on HumanEval+ compared to Qwen 3 32B's 79.0%, while Claude Opus 4.6 scores 80.8% on SWE-bench Verified compared to Qwen 3 32B's 30.0%, while Claude Opus 4.6 scores 72.0% on LiveCodeBench compared to Qwen 3 32B's 36.0%.
Math: In math, Claude Opus 4.6 scores 92.0% on MATH compared to Qwen 3 32B's 72.0%, while Claude Opus 4.6 scores 97.0% on GSM8K compared to Qwen 3 32B's 89.0%.
Reasoning: In reasoning, Claude Opus 4.6 scores 91.3% on GPQA Diamond compared to Qwen 3 32B's 42.0%, while Claude Opus 4.6 scores 60.0% on ARC-AGI compared to Qwen 3 32B's 20.0%.
Context: In context, Claude Opus 4.6 scores 200K on Context Length compared to Qwen 3 32B's 131K.
Pricing Comparison
Claude Opus 4.6 costs $5.0/1M input tokens and $25.0/1M output tokens, while Qwen 3 32B costs $0.10/1M input and $0.30/1M output. Qwen 3 32B is the more affordable option for API usage.
Speed Comparison
Claude Opus 4.6 generates output at 68 tok/s compared to Qwen 3 32B's 120 tok/s, and the time to first token is 1680 ms for Claude Opus 4.6 versus 200 ms for Qwen 3 32B. Qwen 3 32B delivers faster throughput.
Verdict
For developers prioritizing coding and general intelligence and math, Claude Opus 4.6 has the edge. For those who value affordability and speed, Qwen 3 32B is the stronger choice.
View Individual Model Pages
Claude Opus 4.6 vs Qwen 3 32B — FAQ
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.6 or Qwen 3 32B?
Claude Opus 4.6 wins on more benchmarks overall (10 vs 4). However, the best choice depends on your specific needs — each model excels in different areas.
How does Claude Opus 4.6 compare to Qwen 3 32B for coding?
Claude Opus 4.6 is better for coding, scoring 80.8% on SWE-bench Verified compared to 30.0%. SWE-bench tests real-world software engineering by resolving actual GitHub issues.
Is Claude Opus 4.6 cheaper than Qwen 3 32B?
Yes, Qwen 3 32B is cheaper. Claude Opus 4.6 costs $5.0/1M input and $25.0/1M output tokens. Qwen 3 32B costs $0.10/1M input and $0.30/1M output tokens.
Which is faster, Claude Opus 4.6 or Qwen 3 32B?
Qwen 3 32B is faster, generating output at 120 tok/s compared to 68 tok/s. Faster output speed means shorter wait times for API responses.
What benchmarks does the Claude Opus 4.6 vs Qwen 3 32B comparison cover?
This comparison covers 14 benchmarks including Chatbot Arena ELO, MMLU-Pro, HumanEval+, MATH, SWE-bench Verified, GPQA Diamond, Output Speed, Time to First Token, and more. Metrics span general intelligence, coding, math, reasoning, speed, and cost categories.