Model Comparison

Claude Opus 4.1 vs QwQ-32B

Claude Opus 4.1 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Want to compare interactively?Try the playground

Performance Benchmarks

Comparative analysis across standard metrics

1 benchmarks

Claude Opus 4.1 outperforms in 1 benchmarks (GPQA), while QwQ-32B is better at 0 benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.1 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Thu Apr 16 2026 • llm-stats.com

Arena Performance

Human preference votes

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Cost data unavailable.

Lowest available price from all providers
Thu Apr 16 2026 • llm-stats.com
Anthropic
Claude Opus 4.1
Input tokens$15.00
Output tokens$75.00
Best providerAnthropic
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
QwQ-32B
Input tokens$0.00
Output tokens$0.00
Best providerUnknown Organization
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

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
QwQ-32B
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Thu Apr 16 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input Capabilities

Supported data types and modalities

Claude Opus 4.1 supports multimodal inputs, whereas QwQ-32B 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

QwQ-32B

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Claude Opus 4.1 is licensed under a proprietary license, while QwQ-32B 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

QwQ-32B

Apache 2.0

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Claude Opus 4.1 was released on 2025-08-05, while QwQ-32B was released on 2025-03-05.

Claude Opus 4.1 is 5 months newer than QwQ-32B.

Claude Opus 4.1

Aug 5, 2025

8 months ago

5mo newer
QwQ-32B

Mar 5, 2025

1.1 years ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

QwQ-32B has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2024-11-28, while Claude Opus 4.1's cutoff date is not specified.

We can confirm QwQ-32B's training data extends to 2024-11-28, but cannot make a direct comparison without Claude Opus 4.1's cutoff date.

Claude Opus 4.1

—

QwQ-32B

Nov 2024

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Key Takeaways

Anthropic
Larger context window (200,000 tokens)
Supports multimodal inputs
Higher GPQA score (80.9% vs 65.2%)
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team

QwQ-32B

View details

Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team

Has open weights

Detailed Comparison

AI Model Comparison Table
Feature
Anthropic
Claude Opus 4.1
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
QwQ-32B

FAQ

Common questions about Claude Opus 4.1 vs QwQ-32B

Claude Opus 4.1 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks. Claude Opus 4.1 is made by Anthropic and QwQ-32B is made by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their benchmark scores, pricing, and capabilities above.
Claude Opus 4.1 scores MMMLU: 89.5%, TAU-bench Retail: 82.4%, GPQA: 80.9%, AIME 2025: 78.0%, MMMU (validation): 77.1%. QwQ-32B scores MATH-500: 90.6%, IFEval: 83.9%, AIME 2024: 79.5%, LiveBench: 73.1%, BFCL: 66.4%.
Claude Opus 4.1 supports 200K tokens and QwQ-32B supports an unknown number of tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.
Key differences include multimodal support (yes vs no), licensing (Proprietary vs Apache 2.0). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.
Claude Opus 4.1 is developed by Anthropic and QwQ-32B is developed by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team.