Noometry

Model comparison

GPT-4.1 nano vs Qwen2.5 32B Instruct

Qwen2.5 32B Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 30.1 to 27.9 on the Noometry Index. GPT-4.1 nano costs 7.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen2.5 32B Instruct's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 4 shared benchmarks.

GPT-4.1 nano OpenAI

27.9

Rank #327 Confirmed

Qwen2.5 32B Instruct Alibaba (Qwen)

30.1

Rank #297 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 4 benchmarks with published results for both. GPT-4.1 nano scores higher in 1 category and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct in 3 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in coding, where Qwen2.5 32B Instruct leads 38.7 to 24.1.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 28.9% for GPT-4.1 nano and 7.4% for Qwen2.5 32B Instruct.
  • GPT-4.1 nano is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $0.70 / $2.80 for Qwen2.5 32B Instruct.
  • GPT-4.1 nano accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 131K.
  • Qwen2.5 32B Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GPT-4.1 nanoQwen2.5 32B Instruct
ProviderOpenAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index27.930.1
Released2025-04-142024-09
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1.05M131K
Max output33K8K
Input $ / M tokens$0.10$0.70
Output $ / M tokens$0.40$2.80
Results tracked387

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen2.5 32B Instruct leads

GPT-4.1 nano: 24.1 (#330), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 38.7 (#169)

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoQwen2.5 32B Instruct
Aider Polyglot8.9%—
SciCode25.9%—
WeirdML19%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—45%
LMArena Coding1306—
BigCodeBench Complete—52.3%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GPT-4.1 nano: 26.5 (#104), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoQwen2.5 32B Instruct
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard33%—

Reasoning Qwen2.5 32B Instruct leads

GPT-4.1 nano: 8.5 (#349), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 19.2 (#266)

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoQwen2.5 32B Instruct
Epoch Capabilities Index129.62128.52
ARC-AGI-20%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark33.3%—
ARC-AGI-10%—
CritPt0%—
Chess Puzzles—0%
LMArena Hard Prompts1286—
DTBench52.5%—
LMCA5.5%—

Math GPT-4.1 nano leads

GPT-4.1 nano: 26.9 (#252), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 16.2 (#296)

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoQwen2.5 32B Instruct
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202528.9%7.4%
MATH Level 570%56.1%
Omni-MATH36.7%—
LMArena Math1274—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)1%—

Knowledge Qwen2.5 32B Instruct leads

GPT-4.1 nano: 21.8 (#273), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 24.9 (#266)

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoQwen2.5 32B Instruct
GPQA Diamond48.9%46.1%
SimpleQA Verified6%—
MMLU-Pro55%—
GPQA (HELM)50.7%—
LMArena Expert1272—

Multimodal Not comparable

GPT-4.1 nano: 29.2 (#113), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoQwen2.5 32B Instruct
LMArena Vision1063—

Multilingual Not comparable

GPT-4.1 nano: 41.6 (#205), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoQwen2.5 32B Instruct
LMArena Non-English1260—
LMArena Chinese1270—
LMArena German1288—
LMArena Japanese1198—
LMArena Russian1261—

Instruction Following Not comparable

GPT-4.1 nano: 67.8 (#193), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoQwen2.5 32B Instruct
IFEval84.3%—
LMArena Instruction Following1267—

Long Context Not comparable

GPT-4.1 nano: 23.7 (#296), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoQwen2.5 32B Instruct
Fiction.LiveBench25%—
LMArena Longer Query1283—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

GPT-4.1 nano: 40.5 (#243), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoQwen2.5 32B Instruct
LMArena Text1285—
LMArena Creative Writing1260—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing946—
WildBench81.2%—
LMArena Multi-Turn1277—

Frequently asked questions

Is GPT-4.1 nano better than Qwen2.5 32B Instruct?

Qwen2.5 32B Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 30.1 to 27.9 on the Noometry Index. GPT-4.1 nano costs 7.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen2.5 32B Instruct's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, GPT-4.1 nano or Qwen2.5 32B Instruct?

GPT-4.1 nano is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Qwen2.5 32B Instruct lists at $0.70 and $2.80.

Is GPT-4.1 nano or Qwen2.5 32B Instruct better for coding?

Qwen2.5 32B Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.7 versus 24.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

GPT-4.1 nano does, with 1.05M tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks do GPT-4.1 nano and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct share?

4 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-4.1 nano has 38 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct has 7.

Related comparisons

Go deeper