The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Claude Opus 5.5 vs QwQ-32B

Claude Opus 5.5 leads the LLM Stats Score 59.7 to 14.8.

Anthropic · Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Claude Opus 5.5 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 59.7 to 14.8, ranking #1 overall.

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

Choose Claude Opus 5.5

  • overall performance matters — it scores 59.7 and ranks #1 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes reasoning and coding — it leads those capability indexes
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Sep 2026

Choose QwQ-32B

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

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Claude Opus 5.5
Anthropic
QwQ-32B
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
59.7
#1
14.8
#238
Reasoning
57.8
#1
15.6
#229
Coding
51.7
#1
10.3
#170
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
—
—
Input price
$4.00 / M
— / M
Output price
$20.00 / M
— / M
Context window
1,000,000
—

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

1 shared
Index
Claude Opus 5.5
QwQ-32B
Math
42.5#5
18.1#187
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

31 reported for Claude Opus 5.5 · 7 for QwQ-32B

No common benchmarks found

Claude Opus 5.5 and QwQ-32Bdon't have any common benchmark datasets to compare. They may have been evaluated on different testing suites.

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Only Claude Opus 5.5 specifies input context (1,000,000 tokens). Only Claude Opus 5.5 specifies output context (128,000 tokens).

Anthropic
Claude Opus 5.5
Input1,000,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
QwQ-32B
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Wed Sep 23 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Claude Opus 5.5 supports multimodal inputs, whereas QwQ-32B does not.

Claude Opus 5.5 can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

Claude Opus 5.5

Text
Images
Audio
Video

QwQ-32B

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Claude Opus 5.5 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 5.5

Proprietary

Closed source

QwQ-32B

Apache 2.0

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Claude Opus 5.5 was released on 2026-09-22, while QwQ-32B was released on 2025-03-05.

Claude Opus 5.5 is 19 months newer than QwQ-32B.

Claude Opus 5.5

Sep 22, 2026

0 days ago

1.6yr newer
QwQ-32B

Mar 5, 2025

1.6 years ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Claude Opus 5.5 has a knowledge cutoff of 2026-06-01, while QwQ-32B has a cutoff of 2024-11-28.

Claude Opus 5.5 has more recent training data (up to 2026-06-01), making it potentially better informed about events through that date compared to QwQ-32B (2024-11-28).

Claude Opus 5.5

Jun 2026

1.6 yr newer
QwQ-32B

Nov 2024

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against Claude Opus 5.5 and QwQ-32B side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Claude Opus 5.5
✓ Preferred
QwQ-32B
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Claude Opus 5.5 vs QwQ-32B.

Which is better, Claude Opus 5.5 or QwQ-32B?

Claude Opus 5.5 leads the LLM Stats Score 59.7 to 14.8. Claude Opus 5.5 is made by Anthropic and QwQ-32B 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 5.5 compare to QwQ-32B in benchmarks?

Claude Opus 5.5 scores BenchCAD (with Python tool): 96.2%, Global-MMLU: 94.3%, SWE-bench Multilingual: 93.9%, MILU: 93.1%, ArXivMath: 91.2%. QwQ-32B scores MATH-500: 90.6%, IFEval: 83.9%, AIME 2024: 79.5%, LiveBench: 73.1%, BFCL: 66.4%.

What are the context window sizes for Claude Opus 5.5 and QwQ-32B?

Claude Opus 5.5 supports 1.0M 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.

What are the main differences between Claude Opus 5.5 and QwQ-32B?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (59.7 vs 14.8), 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 5.5 and QwQ-32B?

Claude Opus 5.5 is developed by Anthropic and QwQ-32B is developed by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team.

Related comparisons