Noometry

Model comparison

GPT-4.1 vs QwQ-32B

QwQ-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.8 to 35.9 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 25 shared benchmarks.

GPT-4.1 OpenAI

35.9

Rank #219 Confirmed

QwQ-32B Alibaba (Qwen)

39.8

Rank #159 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 25 benchmarks with published results for both. GPT-4.1 scores higher in 2 categories and QwQ-32B in 6 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where QwQ-32B leads 38.0 to 22.3.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is Aider Polyglot: 52.4% for GPT-4.1 and 20.9% for QwQ-32B.
  • QwQ-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GPT-4.1QwQ-32B
ProviderOpenAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index35.939.8
Released2025-04-142024-11-28
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1.05M—
Max output33K—
Input $ / M tokens$2—
Output $ / M tokens$8—
Results tracked5236

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

Category by category

Coding QwQ-32B leads

GPT-4.1: 34.4 (#238), QwQ-32B: 35.4 (#226)

BenchmarkGPT-4.1QwQ-32B
Aider Polyglot52.4%20.9%
LMArena Coding13911333
SWE-bench Verified48.5%—
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)39.6%—
WeirdML39%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—44.6%
LiveBench Coding—72.2%
BigCodeBench Complete—54.4%
CadEval42%—
ALE-Bench558.1—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GPT-4.1: 34.7 (#43), QwQ-32B: —

BenchmarkGPT-4.1QwQ-32B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard54%—

Reasoning QwQ-32B leads

GPT-4.1: 11.7 (#339), QwQ-32B: 23.7 (#174)

BenchmarkGPT-4.1QwQ-32B
Chess Puzzles6%5%
LMArena Hard Prompts13841325
Epoch Capabilities Index136.78137.6
ForecastBench61.558.3
ARC-AGI-20.4%—
SimpleBench27%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark52.3%—
ARC-AGI-15.5%—
EnigmaEval2.2%—
LiveBench Reasoning—83.5%
DTBench68.3%—
LiveBench Data Analysis—65%
LMCA25.6%—
LiveBench—72%

Math QwQ-32B leads

GPT-4.1: 22.3 (#280), QwQ-32B: 38.0 (#143)

BenchmarkGPT-4.1QwQ-32B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202538.3%59.2%
LMArena Math13701359
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)6%—
Omni-MATH47.1%—
LiveBench Math—77.8%
MATH Level 583%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)5.5%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)0%—

Knowledge Too close to call

GPT-4.1: 37.1 (#160), QwQ-32B: 37.2 (#158)

BenchmarkGPT-4.1QwQ-32B
GPQA Diamond66.9%65.3%
LMArena Expert13641324
Humanity's Last Exam5.4%—
SimpleQA Verified31.1%—
MMLU-Pro81.1%—
Confabulations—15.6%
Vectara Hallucination Rate5.6%—
GPQA (HELM)65.9%—

Multimodal Not comparable

GPT-4.1: 38.2 (#67), QwQ-32B: —

BenchmarkGPT-4.1QwQ-32B
LMArena Vision1211—
GeoBench72%—

Multilingual GPT-4.1 leads

GPT-4.1: 49.4 (#133), QwQ-32B: 44.8 (#176)

BenchmarkGPT-4.1QwQ-32B
LMArena Non-English13701305
LMArena Chinese13821378
LMArena French13821336
LMArena German13811313
LMArena Japanese13191262
LMArena Korean13391279
LMArena Russian13771297
LMArena Spanish13761354

Instruction Following QwQ-32B leads

GPT-4.1: 71.3 (#153), QwQ-32B: 72.6 (#137)

BenchmarkGPT-4.1QwQ-32B
LMArena Instruction Following13671297
LiveBench Instruction Following—81.8%
IFEval83.8%—

Long Context QwQ-32B leads

GPT-4.1: 40.0 (#163), QwQ-32B: 49.0 (#11)

BenchmarkGPT-4.1QwQ-32B
Fiction.LiveBench63.9%83.3%
LMArena Longer Query13851308

Writing & Preference GPT-4.1 leads

GPT-4.1: 57.6 (#125), QwQ-32B: 50.6 (#180)

BenchmarkGPT-4.1QwQ-32B
LMArena Text13831329
LMArena Creative Writing13631288
EQ-Bench Creative Writing14201257
LMArena Multi-Turn13981314
Short-Story Creative Writing—80.2%
WildBench85.4%—
LiveBench Language—51.4%

Frequently asked questions

Is GPT-4.1 better than QwQ-32B?

QwQ-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.8 to 35.9 on the Noometry Index.

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

QwQ-32B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 35.4 versus 34.4 in the Noometry coding category.

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

25 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-4.1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and QwQ-32B has 36.

Related comparisons

Go deeper