SSyncDev

AI model comparison

Claude 3.5 Sonnet vs Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct

Compare recorded price, context, output limits, speed, latency, capabilities, and input/output support. Every missing value stays visible, and unsourced benchmarks are excluded.

This Claude 3.5 Sonnet vs Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct comparison is designed for teams choosing between two production model records, not for declaring a universal winner. Claude 3.5 Sonnet by Anthropic currently records 200K context, 8.2K maximum output, $3.00 input per 1M tokens, $15.00 output per 1M tokens, 78 t/s recorded output speed, 0.60s recorded time to first token. Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct by Deepinfra via Requesty records 16.4K context, 41.0K maximum output, $0.07 input per 1M tokens, $0.16 output per 1M tokens. The tables below separate documented capabilities, commercial limits, directory measurements, and source-linked benchmark evidence so you can see where the data is complete and where independent testing is still required.

Side-by-sideSpecs and pricing, compared

Anthropic

Claude 3.5 Sonnet

The 2024 Sonnet that set the standard for practical coding work — now well behind the current Claude line at identical pricing.

Context
200K
Max output
8.2K
Input / 1M
$3.00
Output / 1M
$15.00
Output speed
78 t/s

Accepts

  • Text input
  • Image input

Produces

  • Text output
Full model profileVendor docs ↗
VS

Deepinfra via Requesty

Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct

Qwen3, the latest generation in the Qwen large language model series, features both dense and mixture-of-experts (MoE) architectures to excel in reasoning, multilingual support, and advanced agent tasks. Its unique ability to switch seamlessly between a thinking mode for complex reasoning and a non-thinking mode for efficient dialogue ensures versatile, high-quality performance. Significantly outperforming prior models like QwQ and Qwen2.5, Qwen3 delivers superior mathematics, coding, commonsense reasoning, creative writing, and interactive dialogue capabilities. The Qwen3-30B-A3B variant includes 30.5 billion parameters (3.3 billion activated), 48 layers, 128 experts (8 activated per task), and supports up to 131K token contexts with YaRN, setting a new standard among open-source models.

Context
16.4K
Max output
41.0K
Input / 1M
$0.07
Output / 1M
$0.16
Output speed
—

Accepts

  • Text input

Produces

  • Text output
Full model profileVendor docs ↗

At a glance

Decision snapshot

This is a directional summary of the values recorded in this directory—not a universal quality verdict. Test the finalists on your own prompts before committing.

Where Claude 3.5 Sonnet leads in recorded data

  • Context capacity: 200K

Where Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct leads in recorded data

  • Maximum output: 41.0K
  • Input price: $0.07
  • Output price: $0.16

Context capacity

Higher listed limit

Claude 3.5 Sonnet:200K

Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct:16.4K

Claude 3.5 Sonnet

Maximum output

Higher listed limit

Claude 3.5 Sonnet:8.2K

Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct:41.0K

Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct

Input price

Lower recorded price

Claude 3.5 Sonnet:$3.00

Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct:$0.07

Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct

Output price

Lower recorded price

Claude 3.5 Sonnet:$15.00

Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct:$0.16

Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct

Output speed

Higher recorded throughput

Claude 3.5 Sonnet:78 t/s

Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct:—

No complete comparison

Time to first token

Lower recorded latency

Claude 3.5 Sonnet:0.60s

Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct:—

No complete comparison

Intelligence Index

Higher directory index

Claude 3.5 Sonnet:80.1

Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct:—

No complete comparison

Evidence

Verified shared benchmarks

A score appears only when both records include a verified source. It is not treated as a universal ranking.

These two models haven't been measured on the same benchmark yet, so there's nothing meaningful to chart. Comparing scores from different tests would tell you more about the tests than the models — the specs and pricing above are the better guide here.

Specifications

Pricing, limits and capabilities

SpecificationClaude 3.5 SonnetQwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
ProviderAnthropicDeepinfra via Requesty
Model familyClaude 3.5—
Accepted inputstext, imagetext
Produced outputstexttext
Context window200KRecorded lead16.4K
Max output8.2K41.0KRecorded lead
Intelligence Index80.1—
Input price / 1M$3.00$0.07Recorded lead
Output price / 1M$15.00$0.16Recorded lead
Output speed78 t/s—
Time to first token0.60s—
Reasoning modeDocumentedNot documented
Tool callingDocumentedDocumented
Image inputDocumentedNot documented
Audio inputNot documentedNot documented
Structured outputDocumentedNot documented
LicenseProprietaryNot documented
ReleasedJun 20, 2024Not documented

Workload guidance

Which model should you choose?

Claude 3.5 Sonnet currently leads on larger context. Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct currently leads on larger maximum output, lower recorded input price, lower recorded output price. Choose according to the constraints that matter to your workload, then run the same representative prompts against both models before making a production commitment. Neither the larger number nor the lower price is automatically the better choice: prompt quality, tool reliability, modality support, rate limits, data policy, and provider implementation can change the result. Use this page to build a shortlist, confirm current terms in the linked sources, and validate quality, latency, and cost with your own traffic.

Provenance

Sources and data limits

Prices and hosted performance can change. SyncDev records source references and clearly separates documented specifications from measured values; confirm commercial terms with the provider before deployment.

Questions people ask

It compares recorded context and output limits, token prices, output speed, time to first token, Intelligence Index, modality support, tool and structured-output capabilities, release information, and only source-linked benchmarks verified on both records. Missing information is labeled rather than inferred.

Compare a different pair

Choose any two approved model records and review them with the same evidence rules.

Open model comparison