The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Claude Opus 4.1 vs Qwen2.5 14B Instruct

Claude Opus 4.1 leads the LLM Stats Score 30.1 to 3.9.

Anthropic · Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Claude Opus 4.1 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 30.1 to 3.9, ranking #110 overall.

In the 1 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Claude Opus 4.1 wins 1; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.

Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.

Choose Claude Opus 4.1

  • overall performance matters — it scores 30.1 and ranks #110 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes reasoning and coding — it leads those capability indexes
  • you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 1 of 1 exact shared results
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Aug 2025

Choose Qwen2.5 14B Instruct

  • you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Claude Opus 4.1
Anthropic
Qwen2.5 14B Instruct
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
30.1
#110
3.9
#288
Reasoning
30.2
#106
3.3
#286
Coding
21.8
#75
4.0
#201
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
1 of 1
0 of 1
Input price
$15.00 / M
— / M
Output price
$75.00 / M
— / M
Context window
200,000
—

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

1 shared
Index
Claude Opus 4.1
Qwen2.5 14B Instruct
Math
22.4#130
10.7#241
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

8 reported for Claude Opus 4.1 · 16 for Qwen2.5 14B Instruct

1 shared

Claude Opus 4.1 outperforms in 1 benchmarks (GPQA), while Qwen2.5 14B Instruct is better at 0 benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.1 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Tue Sep 01 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Only Claude Opus 4.1 specifies input context (200,000 tokens). Only Claude Opus 4.1 specifies output context (32,000 tokens).

Anthropic
Claude Opus 4.1
Input200,000 tokens
Output32,000 tokens
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen2.5 14B Instruct
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Tue Sep 01 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Claude Opus 4.1 supports multimodal inputs, whereas Qwen2.5 14B Instruct does not.

Claude Opus 4.1 can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

Claude Opus 4.1

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Qwen2.5 14B Instruct

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Claude Opus 4.1 is licensed under a proprietary license, while Qwen2.5 14B Instruct uses Apache 2.0.

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

Claude Opus 4.1

Proprietary

Closed source

Qwen2.5 14B Instruct

Apache 2.0

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Claude Opus 4.1 was released on 2025-08-05, while Qwen2.5 14B Instruct was released on 2024-09-19.

Claude Opus 4.1 is 11 months newer than Qwen2.5 14B Instruct.

Claude Opus 4.1

Aug 5, 2025

1.1 years ago

10mo newer
Qwen2.5 14B Instruct

Sep 19, 2024

1.9 years ago

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→

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against Claude Opus 4.1 and Qwen2.5 14B Instruct side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Claude Opus 4.1
✓ Preferred
Qwen2.5 14B Instruct
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Claude Opus 4.1 vs Qwen2.5 14B Instruct.

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.1 or Qwen2.5 14B Instruct?

Claude Opus 4.1 leads the LLM Stats Score 30.1 to 3.9. Claude Opus 4.1 is made by Anthropic and Qwen2.5 14B Instruct is made by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their capability indexes, individual benchmarks, pricing, and limits above.

How does Claude Opus 4.1 compare to Qwen2.5 14B Instruct in benchmarks?

Claude Opus 4.1 scores MMMLU: 89.5%, TAU-bench Retail: 82.4%, GPQA: 80.9%, AIME 2025: 78.0%, MMMU (validation): 77.1%. Qwen2.5 14B Instruct scores GSM8k: 94.8%, HumanEval: 83.5%, MBPP: 82.0%, MATH: 80.0%, MMLU-Redux: 80.0%.

What are the context window sizes for Claude Opus 4.1 and Qwen2.5 14B Instruct?

Claude Opus 4.1 supports 200K tokens and Qwen2.5 14B 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 Opus 4.1 and Qwen2.5 14B Instruct?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (30.1 vs 3.9), multimodal support (yes vs no), licensing (Proprietary vs Apache 2.0). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Claude Opus 4.1 and Qwen2.5 14B Instruct?

Claude Opus 4.1 is developed by Anthropic and Qwen2.5 14B Instruct is developed by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team.

Related comparisons