Model comparison

GPT-5.3 Chat vs Qwen2.5 32B Instruct

GPT-5.3 Chat is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.1 to 29.7 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5 32B Instruct costs 3.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.3 Chat's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified October 10, 2026. 0 shared benchmarks.

GPT-5.3 Chat OpenAI

42.1

Rank #109 Confirmed

Qwen2.5 32B Instruct

Alibaba (Qwen)

29.7

Rank #291 Confirmed

Summary

The widest gap is in math, where GPT-5.3 Chat leads 35.4 to 15.3.
Qwen2.5 32B Instruct is cheaper at $0.70 / $2.80 per million input/output tokens, against $1.75 / $14 for GPT-5.3 Chat.
Qwen2.5 32B Instruct accepts more context: 131K tokens versus 128K.
Qwen2.5 32B Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GPT-5.3 Chat and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct specifications
	GPT-5.3 Chat	Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
Provider	OpenAI	Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index	42.1	29.7
Released	2026-03-03	2024-09
Weights	Proprietary	Open
Context window	128K	131K
Max output	16K	8K
Input $ / M tokens	$1.75	$0.70
Output $ / M tokens	$14	$2.80
Results tracked	18	7

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

Category by category

Coding GPT-5.3 Chat leads

GPT-5.3 Chat: 40.8 (#124), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 38.1 (#165)

Coding benchmarks
Benchmark	GPT-5.3 Chat	Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
BigCodeBench Instruct	—	45%
LMArena Coding	1408	—
BigCodeBench Complete	—	52.3%

Reasoning GPT-5.3 Chat leads

GPT-5.3 Chat: 27.3 (#105), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 18.5 (#262)

Reasoning benchmarks
Benchmark	GPT-5.3 Chat	Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
Chess Puzzles	—	0%
LMArena Hard Prompts	1399	—
Epoch Capabilities Index	—	128.52

Math GPT-5.3 Chat leads

GPT-5.3 Chat: 35.4 (#146), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 15.3 (#289)

Math benchmarks
Benchmark	GPT-5.3 Chat	Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025	—	7.4%
LMArena Math	1389	—
MATH Level 5	—	56.1%

Knowledge GPT-5.3 Chat leads

GPT-5.3 Chat: 38.2 (#137), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 24.9 (#259)

Knowledge benchmarks
Benchmark	GPT-5.3 Chat	Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
GPQA Diamond	—	46.1%
LMArena Expert	1397	—

Multilingual Not comparable

GPT-5.3 Chat: 50.5 (#119), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

Multilingual benchmarks
Benchmark	GPT-5.3 Chat	Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
LMArena Non-English	1383	—
LMArena Chinese	1433	—
LMArena French	1398	—
LMArena German	1384	—
LMArena Japanese	1351	—
LMArena Korean	1347	—
LMArena Russian	1400	—
LMArena Spanish	1371	—

Instruction Following Not comparable

GPT-5.3 Chat: 73.0 (#124), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
Benchmark	GPT-5.3 Chat	Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
LMArena Instruction Following	1378	—

Long Context Not comparable

GPT-5.3 Chat: 42.6 (#115), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

Long Context benchmarks
Benchmark	GPT-5.3 Chat	Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
LMArena Longer Query	1396	—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

GPT-5.3 Chat: 63.3 (#65), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
Benchmark	GPT-5.3 Chat	Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
LMArena Text	1389	—
LMArena Creative Writing	1356	—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing	1690	—
LMArena Multi-Turn	1413	—

Frequently asked questions

Is GPT-5.3 Chat better than Qwen2.5 32B Instruct?

Which is cheaper, GPT-5.3 Chat or Qwen2.5 32B Instruct?

Qwen2.5 32B Instruct is cheaper. It lists at $0.70 per million input tokens and $2.80 per million output tokens; GPT-5.3 Chat lists at $1.75 and $14.

Is GPT-5.3 Chat or Qwen2.5 32B Instruct better for coding?

GPT-5.3 Chat scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.8 versus 38.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen2.5 32B Instruct does, with 131K tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do GPT-5.3 Chat and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-5.3 Chat has 18 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct has 7.