Claude vs Qwen for Math

Claude has a clear edge in mathematical reasoning, achieving 95.6% on AIME 2025 compared to Qwen's 91.3%, and its extended thinking mode is particularly powerful for tackling complex proofs and multi-step problems. However, Qwen remains competitive and cost-effective (10x cheaper), making it a solid choice for math tutoring or routine calculations where you don't need peak performance. For professional mathematicians or AI-assisted competition math prep, Claude is the stronger choice.

Head-to-Head for Math

Math Competition Performance (AIME)

Claude

Claude

Leads with 95.6% accuracy

Qwen

Strong at 91.3% accuracy

Complex Reasoning & Proofs

Claude

Claude

Advanced extended thinking capability

Qwen

Extended thinking, slightly less advanced

Long Mathematical Documents

Qwen

Claude

128K token context (Sonnet)

Qwen

256K token context, more space

Cost for Math Problem-Solving

Qwen

Claude

Higher cost per query

Qwen

Significantly more affordable

Advanced Math Accuracy

Claude

Claude

89.9% on GPQA Diamond

Qwen

88.4% on GPQA Diamond

See Them Answer a Math Question

We asked both models the same math-focused prompt.

Solve this step-by-step: A factory produces widgets at a rate that doubles every 3 hours. If it starts with 5 widgets at 8 AM, how many widgets will it have produced in total by 8 PM, and what is the average production rate per hour?

Claude 4.6 Sonnet

Solve this step-by-step: A factory produces widgets at a rate that doubles every 3 hours. If it starts with 5 widgets at 8 AM, how many widgets will it have produced in total by 8 PM, and what is the average production rate per hour?

Widget Production Problem

Setting Up the Problem

Given information:

  • Starting widgets: 5 (at 8 AM)
  • Rate doubles every 3 hours
  • Time period: 8 AM → 8 PM = 12 hours

Step 1: Identify the Production Periods

Every 3 hours represents one doubling period.

Period Time Window Widgets Produced
1 8 AM – 11 AM 5
2 11 AM – 2 PM 5 × 2¹ = 10
3 2 PM – 5 PM 5 × 2² = 20
4 5 PM – 8 PM 5 × 2³ = 40

Step 2: Calculate Total Production

Total=5+10+20+40\text{Total} = 5 + 10 + 20 + 40

Total=75 widgets\text{Total} = \boxed{75 \text{ widgets}}

Using geometric series formula as verification: S=arn1r1=524121=5×15=75S = a \cdot \frac{r^n - 1}{r - 1} = 5 \cdot \frac{2^4 - 1}{2 - 1} = 5 \times 15 = 75 ✓


Step 3: Calculate Average Hourly Rate

Average Rate=Total WidgetsTotal Hours=7512\text{Average Rate} = \frac{\text{Total Widgets}}{\text{Total Hours}} = \frac{75}{12}

6.25 widgets per hour\boxed{\approx 6.25 \text{ widgets per hour}}


Summary

Metric Value
Total widgets produced 75 widgets
Average production rate 6.25 widgets/hour

💡 Key insight: Notice the exponential nature means the last period alone (40 widgets) accounts for more than half of total production — illustrating why doubling growth accelerates so dramatically over time.

Try math tasks with both models

See Claude and Qwen answer side by side in Multichat

Try it yourself — free

Detailed Breakdown

When it comes to mathematical reasoning, both Claude and Qwen are genuinely capable, but the benchmarks tell a clear story: Claude holds a meaningful edge at the highest levels of difficulty.

The most telling data point is AIME 2025 — a competition-level math benchmark that tests advanced problem-solving. Claude scores 95.6% compared to Qwen's 91.3%. That gap widens further on Humanity's Last Exam (33.2% vs 28.7%), which includes graduate-level and olympiad-style problems. For GPQA Diamond, Claude leads 89.9% to 88.4%. Across every available math-relevant benchmark, Claude comes out ahead.

In practice, this means Claude handles multi-step proofs, calculus, linear algebra, and number theory with strong reliability. Its extended thinking feature is particularly valuable for math: you can dial up the reasoning depth, letting Claude work through complex derivations more carefully before returning an answer. For problems that require careful logical chaining — like epsilon-delta proofs or combinatorics problems — this deliberate step-by-step mode reduces errors noticeably.

Qwen is no slouch, however. Its 91.3% on AIME 2025 is genuinely impressive and puts it comfortably above many competing models. For everyday math tasks — solving equations, checking integrals, working through statistics problems, or tutoring high school students — Qwen performs extremely well and is often indistinguishable from Claude. Its 256K context window is also an advantage if you're working through long problem sets or textbooks in a single session.

Cost is where Qwen makes its strongest argument. At roughly $0.40 per million input tokens versus Claude's ~$3.00, Qwen is about 7x cheaper to run via API. For developers building math tutoring apps, automated homework checkers, or research tools where volume matters, Qwen's price-to-performance ratio is hard to beat.

For real-world use cases: students preparing for olympiads or advanced coursework will benefit from Claude's superior accuracy on hard problems. Researchers needing a reliable symbolic reasoning partner should lean Claude. But a startup building a mass-market math tutoring product might reasonably choose Qwen to keep costs manageable without sacrificing much quality on standard curriculum-level content.

Recommendation: Claude is the better choice for math, especially when accuracy on difficult problems matters. The benchmark gap is consistent and meaningful at the harder end of the difficulty spectrum. Qwen remains a strong, cost-effective alternative for standard math tasks where the performance difference is minimal in practice.

Frequently Asked Questions

Other Topics for Claude vs Qwen

Math Comparisons for Other Models

Try math tasks with Claude and Qwen

Compare in Multichat — free

Join 10,000+ professionals who use Multichat