Model comparison

Codestral vs QwQ-32B

QwQ-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.8 to 30.6 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 3 shared benchmarks.

Codestral Mistral AI

30.6

Rank #290 Reported

QwQ-32B Alibaba (Qwen)

39.8

Rank #159 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. Codestral scores higher in 0 categories and QwQ-32B in 2 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in coding, where QwQ-32B leads 35.4 to 27.3.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is Aider Polyglot: 11.1% for Codestral and 20.9% for QwQ-32B.
  • QwQ-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Codestral and QwQ-32B specifications
CodestralQwQ-32B
ProviderMistral AIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index30.639.8
Released2024-05-292024-11-28
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window256K—
Max output8K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.30—
Output $ / M tokens$0.90—
Results tracked736

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding QwQ-32B leads

Codestral: 27.3 (#321), QwQ-32B: 35.4 (#226)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkCodestralQwQ-32B
Aider Polyglot11.1%20.9%
BigCodeBench Instruct41.8%44.6%
BigCodeBench Complete52.5%54.4%
LiveBench Coding—72.2%
LMArena Coding—1333
ALE-Bench137.78—
HumanEval+73.8%—
MBPP+61.9%—

Reasoning QwQ-32B leads

Codestral: 19.8 (#251), QwQ-32B: 23.7 (#174)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkCodestralQwQ-32B
Kagi LLM Benchmark32.5%—
Chess Puzzles—5%
LiveBench Reasoning—83.5%
LMArena Hard Prompts—1325
LiveBench Data Analysis—65%
Epoch Capabilities Index—137.6
ForecastBench—58.3
LiveBench—72%

Math Not comparable

Codestral: —, QwQ-32B: 38.0 (#143)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkCodestralQwQ-32B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—59.2%
LiveBench Math—77.8%
LMArena Math—1359

Knowledge Not comparable

Codestral: —, QwQ-32B: 37.2 (#158)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkCodestralQwQ-32B
GPQA Diamond—65.3%
Confabulations—15.6%
LMArena Expert—1324

Multilingual Not comparable

Codestral: —, QwQ-32B: 44.8 (#176)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkCodestralQwQ-32B
LMArena Non-English—1305
LMArena Chinese—1378
LMArena French—1336
LMArena German—1313
LMArena Japanese—1262
LMArena Korean—1279
LMArena Russian—1297
LMArena Spanish—1354

Instruction Following Not comparable

Codestral: —, QwQ-32B: 72.6 (#137)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkCodestralQwQ-32B
LiveBench Instruction Following—81.8%
LMArena Instruction Following—1297

Long Context Not comparable

Codestral: —, QwQ-32B: 49.0 (#11)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkCodestralQwQ-32B
Fiction.LiveBench—83.3%
LMArena Longer Query—1308

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Codestral: —, QwQ-32B: 50.6 (#180)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkCodestralQwQ-32B
LMArena Text—1329
LMArena Creative Writing—1288
Short-Story Creative Writing—80.2%
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—1257
LMArena Multi-Turn—1314
LiveBench Language—51.4%

Frequently asked questions

Is Codestral better than QwQ-32B?

QwQ-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.8 to 30.6 on the Noometry Index.

Is Codestral or QwQ-32B better for coding?

QwQ-32B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 35.4 versus 27.3 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Codestral and QwQ-32B share?

3 benchmarks have published results for both models. Codestral has 7 scored results on Noometry and QwQ-32B has 36.

Related comparisons

Go deeper