Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs Qwen3 32B
Wins 6 of 6 areas
Coding · Agents · Reasoning · Facts · Long documents · Following instructions
Wins 0 of 6 areas
—
Claude Sonnet 4.5 is the stronger all-rounder.Qwen3 32B is cheaper.
Scores updated · 24 tests both models report · How we compare
Where each one wins
Tests won in each of the six areas where both have results. Each piece is one test, so a longer bar means more evidence; grey means the two scored within a point of each other.
- CodingWriting and fixing software30Claude Sonnet 4.53 of 3 tests
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own20Claude Sonnet 4.52 of 3 tests · 1 tie
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking20Claude Sonnet 4.52 of 3 tests · 1 tie
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up21Claude Sonnet 4.52 of 3 tests
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts10Claude Sonnet 4.51 of 1 test
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked10Claude Sonnet 4.51 of 1 test
Long documents and following instructions rest on a single test each.
What it costs
Prices per million tokens, roughly 750,000 words. The bars show the cost of a million tokens read plus a million written.
Qwen3 32B costs 96% less for the same work.
The biggest differences
The tests each model wins by the widest margin, up to three each. Scores are out of 100.
Where Claude Sonnet 4.5 pulls ahead
- Command-line tasks in a real terminalTerminal-Bench 2.1+50.6points ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+33points ahead
- Hard command-line tasks in a real terminalTerminal-Bench Hard+32.6points ahead
Where Qwen3 32B pulls ahead
No clear win on a test scored out of 100.
Every test, side by side
All 24 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
CodingClaude Sonnet 4.5
- Terminal-Bench 2.1Claude Sonnet 4.5 by 50.655.85.2+50.6
- Terminal-Bench HardClaude Sonnet 4.5 by 32.635.63+32.6
- SciCodeClaude Sonnet 4.5 by 9.745.736+9.7
AgentsClaude Sonnet 4.5
- GDPValClaude Sonnet 4.5 by 20.520.50+20.5
- τ-Bench V3 · BankingClaude Sonnet 4.5 by 19.124.55.4+19.1
- Terminal-Bench 4.0tie00tie
ReasoningClaude Sonnet 4.5
- GPQA DiamondClaude Sonnet 4.5 by 16.683.466.8+16.6
- Humanity's Last ExamClaude Sonnet 4.5 by 10.417.87.4+10.4
- CritPttie1.10.3tie
FactsClaude Sonnet 4.5
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationClaude Sonnet 4.5 by 3350.917.9+33
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyClaude Sonnet 4.5 by 15.532.917.4+15.5
- Vectara HHEM hallucination ratelower is betterQwen3 32B by 6.1125.9+6.1
Following instructionsClaude Sonnet 4.5
- IFBenchClaude Sonnet 4.5 by 2157.336.3+21
Other results10 tests, not counted
Tests outside the eight areas. They are not counted above: several are summary scores built from other tests, or the same test under another name.
- AA-OmniscienceClaude Sonnet 4.5 by 50.3-0.1-50.4+50.3
- τ²-Bench Telecom (AA run)Claude Sonnet 4.5 by 48.378.129.8+48.3
- Artificial Analysis Coding IndexClaude Sonnet 4.5 by 36.852.115.3+36.8
- AIME 2025Claude Sonnet 4.5 by 14.18772.9+14.1
- AA IntelligenceClaude Sonnet 4.5 by 12.120.78.6+12.1
- vectara_factual_consistencyQwen3 32B by 6.18894.1+6.1
- MMLU-ProClaude Sonnet 4.5 by 5.787.581.8+5.7
- LiveCodeBenchClaude Sonnet 4.5 by 5.37165.7+5.3
- vectara_answer_rateQwen3 32B by 4.395.699.9+4.3
- vectara_avg_summary_lengthClaude Sonnet 4.5 by 12 rating points127.8115.8+12 rating
Questions people ask
Which is better, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or Qwen3 32B?
Claude Sonnet 4.5 wins all six areas where both have results: coding, agents, reasoning, facts, long documents and following instructions. Qwen3 32B wins none, but costs 96% less.
Which is better for coding?
Claude Sonnet 4.5. It wins 3 of the 3 coding tests both models report; Qwen3 32B wins none.
Which is cheaper?
Claude Sonnet 4.5 costs $3.00 per million input tokens and $15.00 per million output tokens; Qwen3 32B costs $0.16 and $0.64. That makes Qwen3 32B about 96% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 24 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 14 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 10 are listed but not counted, because several are summary scores or repeat a test. Each score is the one shown on the model's own page.