Model comparison
GPT-5.4 mini vs Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
GPT-5.4 mini is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.0 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5-Coder-32B costs 2.3× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.4 mini's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. GPT-5.4 mini scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in coding, where GPT-5.4 mini leads 45.2 to 22.6.
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B is cheaper at $0.66 / $1 per million input/output tokens, against $0.75 / $4.50 for GPT-5.4 mini.
- GPT-5.4 mini accepts more context: 400K tokens versus 33K.
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| GPT-5.4 mini | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 45.0 | 33.4 |
| Released | 2026-03-17 | 2024-09-18 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 400K | 33K |
| Max output | 128K | 29K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.75 | $0.66 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $4.50 | $1 |
| Results tracked | 46 | 31 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GPT-5.4 mini leads
GPT-5.4 mini: 45.2 (#72), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 22.6 (#333)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 mini | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1438 | 1276 |
| FrontierCode | 27% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | — | 9% |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 16.4% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1397 | — |
| SciCode | 49.9% | — |
| WeirdML | 60.3% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 49% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 56.9% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 58% |
| ALE-Bench | 1,189 | — |
| HumanEval+ | — | 87.2% |
| MBPP+ | — | 77% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GPT-5.4 mini: 29.9 (#81), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: —
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 mini | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| DeepResearch Bench | 36.3% | — |
Reasoning GPT-5.4 mini leads
GPT-5.4 mini: 30.4 (#85), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 21.2 (#225)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 mini | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1424 | 1251 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 148.84 | 119.49 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 18.9% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 37.9% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 61.8% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 63.7% | — |
| CritPt | 10% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 24% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 61.7% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 42.1% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 11% | — |
| DTBench | 80% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 49.9% |
| LMCA | 40.8% | — |
| ForecastBench | 57 | — |
| HellaSwag | — | 83% |
| LiveBench | — | 46.2% |
| WinoGrande | — | 80.8% |
Math GPT-5.4 mini leads
GPT-5.4 mini: 45.5 (#75), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.3 (#204)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 mini | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1419 | 1251 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 51.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 9.8% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 88.9% | — |
| ProofBench | 21% | — |
| LiveBench Math | — | 46.6% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 28.3% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 2.1% | — |
| GSM8K | — | 93% |
Knowledge GPT-5.4 mini leads
GPT-5.4 mini: 51.5 (#67), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.4 (#203)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 mini | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1435 | 1221 |
| GPQA Diamond | 86.9% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 29.4% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 5.5% | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 70.5% |
| MMLU | — | 79.1% |
Multimodal Not comparable
GPT-5.4 mini: 39.7 (#56), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: —
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 mini | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1245 | — |
Multilingual GPT-5.4 mini leads
GPT-5.4 mini: 51.9 (#96), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 37.8 (#235)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 mini | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1405 | 1205 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1446 | 1222 |
| LMArena Russian | 1417 | 1228 |
| LMArena French | 1440 | — |
| LMArena German | 1409 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1374 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1368 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1405 | — |
Instruction Following GPT-5.4 mini leads
GPT-5.4 mini: 74.1 (#102), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 61.4 (#245)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 mini | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1405 | 1223 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 58.7% |
Long Context GPT-5.4 mini leads
GPT-5.4 mini: 43.0 (#112), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 38.0 (#208)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 mini | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1407 | 1251 |
Writing & Preference GPT-5.4 mini leads
GPT-5.4 mini: 64.0 (#58), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 41.6 (#240)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 mini | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1412 | 1230 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1370 | 1174 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1429 | 1222 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1665 | — |
| LiveBench Language | — | 23.3% |
Frequently asked questions
Is GPT-5.4 mini better than Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?
GPT-5.4 mini is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.0 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5-Coder-32B costs 2.3× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.4 mini's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, GPT-5.4 mini or Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?
Qwen2.5-Coder-32B is cheaper. It lists at $0.66 per million input tokens and $1 per million output tokens; GPT-5.4 mini lists at $0.75 and $4.50.
Is GPT-5.4 mini or Qwen2.5-Coder-32B better for coding?
GPT-5.4 mini scores higher on coding benchmarks: 45.2 versus 22.6 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
GPT-5.4 mini does, with 400K tokens against 33K.
How many benchmarks do GPT-5.4 mini and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B share?
13 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-5.4 mini has 46 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has 31.