Noometry

Model comparison

GPT-5.5 Instant vs Qwen2.5 32B Instruct

GPT-5.5 Instant is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.7 to 30.1 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 4 shared benchmarks.

GPT-5.5 Instant OpenAI

42.7

Rank #110 Confirmed

Qwen2.5 32B Instruct Alibaba (Qwen)

30.1

Rank #297 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 4 benchmarks with published results for both. GPT-5.5 Instant scores higher in 4 categories and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct in 0 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where GPT-5.5 Instant leads 48.9 to 24.9.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 68.1% for GPT-5.5 Instant and 7.4% for Qwen2.5 32B Instruct.
  • Qwen2.5 32B Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GPT-5.5 InstantQwen2.5 32B Instruct
ProviderOpenAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index42.730.1
Released2026-05-052024-09
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window—131K
Max output—8K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.70
Output $ / M tokens—$2.80
Results tracked277

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

Category by category

Coding GPT-5.5 Instant leads

GPT-5.5 Instant: 44.3 (#74), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 38.7 (#169)

BenchmarkGPT-5.5 InstantQwen2.5 32B Instruct
SciCode48.6%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—45%
LMArena Coding1433—
BigCodeBench Complete—52.3%

Reasoning GPT-5.5 Instant leads

GPT-5.5 Instant: 24.9 (#155), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 19.2 (#266)

BenchmarkGPT-5.5 InstantQwen2.5 32B Instruct
Chess Puzzles12%0%
Epoch Capabilities Index142.52128.52
CritPt0%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1426—

Math GPT-5.5 Instant leads

GPT-5.5 Instant: 26.5 (#259), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 16.2 (#296)

BenchmarkGPT-5.5 InstantQwen2.5 32B Instruct
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202568.1%7.4%
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)26.3%—
FrontierMath Tier 42.4%—
LMArena Math1420—
MATH Level 5—56.1%

Knowledge GPT-5.5 Instant leads

GPT-5.5 Instant: 48.9 (#74), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 24.9 (#266)

BenchmarkGPT-5.5 InstantQwen2.5 32B Instruct
GPQA Diamond82.5%46.1%
LMArena Expert1409—

Multimodal Not comparable

GPT-5.5 Instant: 40.0 (#52), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

BenchmarkGPT-5.5 InstantQwen2.5 32B Instruct
LMArena Vision1250—
LMArena Document1403—

Multilingual Not comparable

GPT-5.5 Instant: 52.8 (#80), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

BenchmarkGPT-5.5 InstantQwen2.5 32B Instruct
LMArena Non-English1417—
LMArena Chinese1456—
LMArena French1428—
LMArena German1411—
LMArena Japanese1408—
LMArena Korean1392—
LMArena Russian1431—
LMArena Spanish1429—

Instruction Following Not comparable

GPT-5.5 Instant: 74.2 (#100), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

BenchmarkGPT-5.5 InstantQwen2.5 32B Instruct
LMArena Instruction Following1406—

Long Context Not comparable

GPT-5.5 Instant: 43.4 (#96), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

BenchmarkGPT-5.5 InstantQwen2.5 32B Instruct
LMArena Longer Query1422—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

GPT-5.5 Instant: 61.8 (#85), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

BenchmarkGPT-5.5 InstantQwen2.5 32B Instruct
LMArena Text1419—
LMArena Creative Writing1419—
LMArena Multi-Turn1433—

Frequently asked questions

Is GPT-5.5 Instant better than Qwen2.5 32B Instruct?

GPT-5.5 Instant is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.7 to 30.1 on the Noometry Index.

Is GPT-5.5 Instant or Qwen2.5 32B Instruct better for coding?

GPT-5.5 Instant scores higher on coding benchmarks: 44.3 versus 38.7 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do GPT-5.5 Instant and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct share?

4 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-5.5 Instant has 27 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct has 7.

Related comparisons

Go deeper