Model Comparison

Claude 3 Opus vs Qwen2.5 32B Instruct

Both models are evenly matched across the benchmarks.

Want to compare interactively?Try the playground

Performance Benchmarks

Comparative analysis across standard metrics

8 benchmarks

Claude 3 Opus outperforms in 4 benchmarks (ARC-C, GPQA, HellaSwag, MMLU), while Qwen2.5 32B Instruct is better at 4 benchmarks (GSM8k, HumanEval, MATH, MMLU-Pro).

Both models are evenly matched across the benchmarks.

Wed May 27 2026 • llm-stats.com

Arena Performance

Human preference votes

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Only Claude 3 Opus specifies input context (200,000 tokens). Only Claude 3 Opus specifies output context (200,000 tokens).

Claude 3 Opus

Input200,000 tokens

Output200,000 tokens

Qwen2.5 32B Instruct

Input- tokens

Output- tokens

Wed May 27 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input Capabilities

Supported data types and modalities

Claude 3 Opus supports multimodal inputs, whereas Qwen2.5 32B Instruct does not.

Claude 3 Opus can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

Claude 3 Opus

Text

Images

Audio

Video

Qwen2.5 32B Instruct

Text

Images

Audio

Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Claude 3 Opus is licensed under a proprietary license, while Qwen2.5 32B Instruct uses Apache 2.0.

License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.

Claude 3 Opus

Proprietary

Closed source

Qwen2.5 32B Instruct

Apache 2.0

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Claude 3 Opus was released on 2024-02-29, while Qwen2.5 32B Instruct was released on 2024-09-19.

Qwen2.5 32B Instruct is 7 months newer than Claude 3 Opus.

Claude 3 Opus

Feb 29, 2024

2.2 years ago

Qwen2.5 32B Instruct

Sep 19, 2024

1.7 years ago

6mo newer

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.

Unable to compare the recency of their training data.

No cutoff dates available

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Key Takeaways

Claude 3 Opus

View details

Anthropic

Larger context window (200,000 tokens)

Supports multimodal inputs

Higher ARC-C score (96.4% vs 70.4%)

Higher GPQA score (50.4% vs 49.5%)

Higher HellaSwag score (95.4% vs 85.2%)

Higher MMLU score (86.8% vs 83.3%)

Qwen2.5 32B Instruct

View details

Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team

Has open weights

Higher GSM8k score (95.9% vs 95.0%)

Higher HumanEval score (88.4% vs 84.9%)

Higher MATH score (83.1% vs 60.1%)

Higher MMLU-Pro score (69.0% vs 68.5%)

Detailed Comparison

AI Model Comparison Table
Feature	Claude 3 Opus	Qwen2.5 32B Instruct

FAQ

Common questions about Claude 3 Opus vs Qwen2.5 32B Instruct.

Which is better, Claude 3 Opus or Qwen2.5 32B Instruct?

Both models are evenly matched across the benchmarks. Claude 3 Opus is made by Anthropic and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct is made by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their benchmark scores, pricing, and capabilities above.

How does Claude 3 Opus compare to Qwen2.5 32B Instruct in benchmarks?

Claude 3 Opus scores ARC-C: 96.4%, HellaSwag: 95.4%, GSM8k: 95.0%, MGSM: 90.7%, BIG-Bench Hard: 86.8%. Qwen2.5 32B Instruct scores GSM8k: 95.9%, HumanEval: 88.4%, HellaSwag: 85.2%, BBH: 84.5%, MBPP: 84.0%.

What are the context window sizes for Claude 3 Opus and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct?

Claude 3 Opus supports 200K tokens and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct supports an unknown number of tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between Claude 3 Opus and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct?

Key differences include multimodal support (yes vs no), licensing (Proprietary vs Apache 2.0). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Claude 3 Opus and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct?

Claude 3 Opus is developed by Anthropic and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct is developed by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team.