Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Claude Opus 4.5
77
Exaone 4.0 32B
65
Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.5 #9 · Exaone 4.0 32B unranked
Pick Claude Opus 4.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Exaone 4.0 32B only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.
Knowledge
+15.6 difference
Claude Opus 4.5
Exaone 4.0 32B
$5 / $25
N/A
46 t/s
N/A
1.01s
N/A
200K
128K
Pick Claude Opus 4.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Exaone 4.0 32B only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.
Claude Opus 4.5 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 77 to 65. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Exaone 4.0 32B is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude Opus 4.5 is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. Claude Opus 4.5 gives you the larger context window at 200K, compared with 128K for Exaone 4.0 32B.
Claude Opus 4.5 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 77 to 65. The biggest single separator in this matchup is MMLU-Pro, where the scores are 89.5% and 81.8%.
Exaone 4.0 32B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 81.8 versus 66.2. Inside this category, MMLU-Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.