Skip to main content
BenchLM

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.8 vs Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 4 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.

85/100
Margin
79.0pts
← winning
6/100
0 category wins0 category wins

Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.8 #3; Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct unranked

Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.8 and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct share 4 comparable benchmark results. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 49 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.8; 0 to Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct.

Updated July 12, 2026
Shared results
4
Claude Opus 4.8 only
49
Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct only
0
Comparable categories
0 / 8

Benchmark data for Claude Opus 4.8 and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct is coming soon on BenchLM.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 4 shared benchmark results across 2 evidence categories; 0 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

BenchLM has partial data for these models, but not enough overlapping benchmark coverage to produce a fair score-level comparison yet.

Claude Opus 4.8 is priced at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct. Claude Opus 4.8 has the larger context window at 1M, compared with 128K for Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct.

Category breakdown

Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.

Category scores and score margins for Claude Opus 4.8 and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
CategoryClaude Opus 4.8ΔQwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
AgenticClaude Opus 4.880.3MarginNo overlapQwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructNot measured
CodingClaude Opus 4.876.4MarginNo overlapQwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructNot measured
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.862.7MarginNo overlapQwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructNot measured
MathClaude Opus 4.853.9MarginNo overlapQwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructNot measured
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.877.0MarginNo overlapQwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructNot measured

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricClaude Opus 4.8Qwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.8$5 input / $25 outputQwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct$0 input / $0 outputQwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.8Not availableQwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.8Not availableQwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.81MQwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct128KClaude Opus 4.8 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 74.6%—Not comparable
BrowseCompSource 84.3%—Not comparable
DeepSearchQASource 93.1%—Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 83.4%—Not comparable
Finance Agent v2Source 53.9%—Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 1600—Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource 82.2%—Not comparable
ToolathlonSource 59.9%—Not comparable
Gert LabsSource 72.97%—Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource 47.2%—Not comparable
Tau2-TelecomSource 94.4%—Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 55.0%—Not comparable
ResearchClawBenchSource 21.1%—Not comparable
OSWorld 2.0Source 20.6%—Not comparable
AA BriefcaseSource 1354—Not comparable
AA AutomationBenchSource 48.5%—Not comparable
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource 44.0%—Not comparable
AA Harvey LABSource 7.5%—Not comparable
AA Tau3 BankingSource 27.6%—Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 88.6%—Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 69.2%—Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource 84.4%—Not comparable
SWE MultimodalSource 38.4%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 74.6%—Not comparable
cursorBench31Source 58.4%—Not comparable
cursorBench32Source 62.3%—Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 74.3%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench HardSource 58.3%—Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 53.5%27.1%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
FrontierCodeSource 46.5%—Not comparable
AA Terminal-Bench 2.1Source 84.6%—Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructResult
AA-LCRSource 67.7%—Not comparable
CritPtSource 20.9%—Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructResult
GPQASource 93.6%—Not comparable
GPQA-DSource 93.6%—Not comparable
HLESource 57.9%—Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource 49.8%—Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 55.7%7.1%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 92.0%41.7%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-HLESource 45.7%3.8%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 27.4%—Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 46.6%—Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 35.9%—Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructResult
USAMO 2026Source 96.7%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 47.241%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 31.250%—Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructResult
INCLUDESource 87.6%—Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructResult
OfficeQA ProSource 66.2%—Not comparable
ScreenSpot ProSource 87.9%—Not comparable
CharXivSource 89.9%—Not comparable
CharXiv w/o toolsSource 80.5%—Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1281—Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Qwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructResult
AA-IFBenchSource 62.2%—Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Can I compare Claude Opus 4.8 and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct on BenchLM yet?

Not fully yet. BenchLM is tracking both models, but the sourced benchmark breakdown for this comparison is still coming soon.

Why does this comparison show “coming soon”?

BenchLM only shows category winners and benchmark-level calls when we have sourced results that can be compared fairly. For these models, the public benchmark coverage is not complete enough yet.

What data is available for Claude Opus 4.8 and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct today?

Claude Opus 4.8: $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct: $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens Both model pages still include creator, context window, reasoning mode, and other metadata while benchmark coverage fills in.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Anthropic Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 12, 2026

The AI models change fast. We track them for you.

A weekly brief for engineers and researchers covering new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.

Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.