Model comparison
GPT-4o mini vs Qwen3 32B
Qwen3 32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 25.4 on the Noometry Index. GPT-4o mini costs 4.7× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3 32B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 21 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 21 benchmarks with published results for both. GPT-4o mini scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3 32B in 9 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3 32B leads 37.9 to 9.9.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 6.9% for GPT-4o mini and 66.9% for Qwen3 32B.
- GPT-4o mini is cheaper at $0.15 / $0.60 per million input/output tokens, against $0.70 / $2.80 for Qwen3 32B.
- Qwen3 32B accepts more context: 131K tokens versus 128K.
- Qwen3 32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| GPT-4o mini | Qwen3 32B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 25.4 | 38.8 |
| Released | 2024-07-18 | 2025-04 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 128K | 131K |
| Max output | 16K | 16K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.15 | $0.70 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.60 | $2.80 |
| Results tracked | 60 | 26 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3 32B leads
GPT-4o mini: 21.6 (#330), Qwen3 32B: 37.3 (#184)
| Benchmark | GPT-4o mini | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Aider Polyglot | 3.6% | 40% |
| LMArena Coding | 1290 | 1358 |
| SciCode | — | 35.4% |
| WeirdML | 11.8% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 46.1% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 43.1% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 57.4% | — |
| HumanEval+ | 83.5% | — |
| MBPP+ | 72.2% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Qwen3 32B leads
GPT-4o mini: 27.2 (#95), Qwen3 32B: 32.3 (#58)
| Benchmark | GPT-4o mini | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 48.7% |
| BALROG | 17.4% | — |
Reasoning Qwen3 32B leads
GPT-4o mini: 8.7 (#343), Qwen3 32B: 19.6 (#233)
| Benchmark | GPT-4o mini | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 28.8% | 54.9% |
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | 5% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1267 | 1335 |
| DTBench | 54.4% | 67.5% |
| LMCA | 10.4% | 17.3% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 126.56 | 138.51 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 0% | — |
| SimpleBench | 10.7% | — |
| CritPt | — | 0.3% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 32.8% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 12% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 50% | — |
| LiveBench | 41.3% | — |
| PIQA | 88.7% | — |
Math Qwen3 32B leads
GPT-4o mini: 9.9 (#307), Qwen3 32B: 37.9 (#89)
| Benchmark | GPT-4o mini | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 6.9% | 66.9% |
| LMArena Math | 1267 | 1399 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 0.7% | — |
| Omni-MATH | 28% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 36.3% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 52.6% | — |
| GSM8K | 91.3% | — |
Knowledge Qwen3 32B leads
GPT-4o mini: 17.7 (#279), Qwen3 32B: 40.0 (#112)
| Benchmark | GPT-4o mini | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 37.7% | 65.7% |
| LMArena Expert | 1235 | 1362 |
| SimpleQA Verified | 8.3% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 60.3% | — |
| Confabulations | 37.2% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 5.9% |
| GPQA (HELM) | 36.8% | — |
| BoolQ | 88.7% | — |
| MMLU | 81.8% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
GPT-4o mini: 25.3 (#117), Qwen3 32B: —
| Benchmark | GPT-4o mini | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1066 | — |
| Video-MME | 64.8% | — |
| GeoBench | 64% | — |
| VPCT | 34% | — |
Multilingual Qwen3 32B leads
GPT-4o mini: 42.2 (#194), Qwen3 32B: 45.8 (#162)
| Benchmark | GPT-4o mini | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1266 | 1317 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1264 | 1357 |
| LMArena German | 1272 | 1341 |
| LMArena Russian | 1275 | 1311 |
| LMArena French | 1296 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1216 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1195 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1276 | — |
Instruction Following Qwen3 32B leads
GPT-4o mini: 62.1 (#234), Qwen3 32B: 69.1 (#174)
| Benchmark | GPT-4o mini | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1259 | 1305 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 56.8% | — |
| IFEval | 78.2% | — |
Long Context Qwen3 32B leads
GPT-4o mini: 39.1 (#181), Qwen3 32B: 43.7 (#83)
| Benchmark | GPT-4o mini | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1289 | 1327 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 74.2% |
Writing & Preference Qwen3 32B leads
GPT-4o mini: 39.7 (#243), Qwen3 32B: 53.1 (#158)
| Benchmark | GPT-4o mini | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1286 | 1340 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1268 | 1297 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1285 | 1331 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 67.2% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 873 | — |
| WildBench | 79.1% | — |
| LiveBench Language | 28.6% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GPT-4o mini better than Qwen3 32B?
Qwen3 32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 25.4 on the Noometry Index. GPT-4o mini costs 4.7× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3 32B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, GPT-4o mini or Qwen3 32B?
GPT-4o mini is cheaper. It lists at $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.60 per million output tokens; Qwen3 32B lists at $0.70 and $2.80.
Is GPT-4o mini or Qwen3 32B better for coding?
Qwen3 32B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.3 versus 21.6 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3 32B does, with 131K tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks do GPT-4o mini and Qwen3 32B share?
21 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-4o mini has 60 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 32B has 26.