Noometry

Model comparison

GPT-4.1 nano vs QwQ-32B

QwQ-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.4 to 27.7 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 20 shared benchmarks.

GPT-4.1 nano OpenAI

27.7

Rank #322 Confirmed

QwQ-32B Alibaba (Qwen)

39.4

Rank #153 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 20 benchmarks with published results for both. GPT-4.1 nano scores higher in 0 categories and QwQ-32B in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in long context, where QwQ-32B leads 49.0 to 23.7.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is Fiction.LiveBench: 25% for GPT-4.1 nano and 83.3% for QwQ-32B.
  • QwQ-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GPT-4.1 nanoQwQ-32B
ProviderOpenAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index27.739.4
Released2025-04-142024-11-28
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1.05M—
Max output33K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.10—
Output $ / M tokens$0.40—
Results tracked3836

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

Category by category

Coding QwQ-32B leads

GPT-4.1 nano: 23.8 (#325), QwQ-32B: 34.9 (#220)

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoQwQ-32B
Aider Polyglot8.9%20.9%
LMArena Coding13061333
SciCode25.9%—
WeirdML19%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—44.6%
LiveBench Coding—72.2%
BigCodeBench Complete—54.4%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GPT-4.1 nano: 26.3 (#98), QwQ-32B: —

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoQwQ-32B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard33%—

Reasoning QwQ-32B leads

GPT-4.1 nano: 8.6 (#344), QwQ-32B: 22.9 (#171)

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoQwQ-32B
LMArena Hard Prompts12861326
Epoch Capabilities Index129.62137.6
ARC-AGI-20%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark33.3%—
ARC-AGI-10%—
CritPt0%—
Chess Puzzles—5%
LiveBench Reasoning—83.5%
DTBench52.5%—
LiveBench Data Analysis—65%
LMCA5.5%—
ForecastBench—58.3
LiveBench—72%

Math QwQ-32B leads

GPT-4.1 nano: 25.5 (#246), QwQ-32B: 36.2 (#123)

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoQwQ-32B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202528.9%59.2%
LMArena Math12741359
Omni-MATH36.7%—
LiveBench Math—77.8%
MATH Level 570%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)1%—

Knowledge QwQ-32B leads

GPT-4.1 nano: 21.8 (#268), QwQ-32B: 37.2 (#150)

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoQwQ-32B
GPQA Diamond48.9%65.3%
LMArena Expert12721323
SimpleQA Verified6%—
MMLU-Pro55%—
Confabulations—15.6%
GPQA (HELM)50.7%—

Multimodal Not comparable

GPT-4.1 nano: 28.6 (#108), QwQ-32B: —

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoQwQ-32B
LMArena Vision1063—

Multilingual QwQ-32B leads

GPT-4.1 nano: 41.8 (#200), QwQ-32B: 45.0 (#171)

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoQwQ-32B
LMArena Non-English12601306
LMArena Chinese12701378
LMArena German12881313
LMArena Japanese11991263
LMArena Russian12611297
LMArena French—1337
LMArena Korean—1278
LMArena Spanish—1353

Instruction Following QwQ-32B leads

GPT-4.1 nano: 68.0 (#188), QwQ-32B: 72.8 (#131)

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoQwQ-32B
LMArena Instruction Following12671297
LiveBench Instruction Following—81.8%
IFEval84.3%—

Long Context QwQ-32B leads

GPT-4.1 nano: 23.7 (#291), QwQ-32B: 49.0 (#11)

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoQwQ-32B
Fiction.LiveBench25%83.3%
LMArena Longer Query12831308

Writing & Preference QwQ-32B leads

GPT-4.1 nano: 40.7 (#238), QwQ-32B: 50.9 (#175)

BenchmarkGPT-4.1 nanoQwQ-32B
LMArena Text12851329
LMArena Creative Writing12601288
EQ-Bench Creative Writing9461257
LMArena Multi-Turn12771314
Short-Story Creative Writing—80.2%
WildBench81.2%—
LiveBench Language—51.4%

Frequently asked questions

Is GPT-4.1 nano better than QwQ-32B?

QwQ-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.4 to 27.7 on the Noometry Index.

Is GPT-4.1 nano or QwQ-32B better for coding?

QwQ-32B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 34.9 versus 23.8 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do GPT-4.1 nano and QwQ-32B share?

20 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-4.1 nano has 38 scored results on Noometry and QwQ-32B has 36.

Related comparisons

Go deeper