Noometry

Model comparison

GPT-5.5 Instant vs Qwen2.5-Coder-32B

GPT-5.5 Instant is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.7 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.

GPT-5.5 Instant OpenAI

42.7

Rank #110 Confirmed

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B Alibaba (Qwen)

33.4

Rank #245 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. GPT-5.5 Instant scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B in 1 category; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in coding, where GPT-5.5 Instant leads 44.3 to 22.6.
  • Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GPT-5.5 InstantQwen2.5-Coder-32B
ProviderOpenAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index42.733.4
Released2026-05-052024-09-18
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window—33K
Max output—29K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.66
Output $ / M tokens—$1
Results tracked2731

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-Coder-32B: 22.6 (#333)

BenchmarkGPT-5.5 InstantQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Coding14331276
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)—9%
Aider Polyglot—16.4%
SciCode48.6%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—49%
LiveBench Coding—56.9%
BigCodeBench Complete—58%
HumanEval+—87.2%
MBPP+—77%

Reasoning GPT-5.5 Instant leads

GPT-5.5 Instant: 24.9 (#155), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 21.2 (#225)

BenchmarkGPT-5.5 InstantQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Hard Prompts14261251
Epoch Capabilities Index142.52119.49
CritPt0%—
Chess Puzzles12%—
LiveBench Reasoning—42.1%
LiveBench Data Analysis—49.9%
HellaSwag—83%
LiveBench—46.2%
WinoGrande—80.8%

Math Qwen2.5-Coder-32B leads

GPT-5.5 Instant: 26.5 (#259), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.3 (#204)

BenchmarkGPT-5.5 InstantQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Math14201251
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)26.3%—
FrontierMath Tier 42.4%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202568.1%—
LiveBench Math—46.6%
GSM8K—93%

Knowledge GPT-5.5 Instant leads

GPT-5.5 Instant: 48.9 (#74), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.4 (#203)

BenchmarkGPT-5.5 InstantQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Expert14091221
GPQA Diamond82.5%—
ARC (AI2) Challenge—70.5%
MMLU—79.1%

Multimodal Not comparable

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

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

Multilingual GPT-5.5 Instant leads

GPT-5.5 Instant: 52.8 (#80), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 37.8 (#235)

BenchmarkGPT-5.5 InstantQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Non-English14171205
LMArena Chinese14561222
LMArena Russian14311228
LMArena French1428—
LMArena German1411—
LMArena Japanese1408—
LMArena Korean1392—
LMArena Spanish1429—

Instruction Following GPT-5.5 Instant leads

GPT-5.5 Instant: 74.2 (#100), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 61.4 (#245)

BenchmarkGPT-5.5 InstantQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Instruction Following14061223
LiveBench Instruction Following—58.7%

Long Context GPT-5.5 Instant leads

GPT-5.5 Instant: 43.4 (#96), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 38.0 (#208)

BenchmarkGPT-5.5 InstantQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Longer Query14221251

Writing & Preference GPT-5.5 Instant leads

GPT-5.5 Instant: 61.8 (#85), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 41.6 (#240)

BenchmarkGPT-5.5 InstantQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Text14191230
LMArena Creative Writing14191174
LMArena Multi-Turn14331222
LiveBench Language—23.3%

Frequently asked questions

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

GPT-5.5 Instant is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.7 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index.

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

GPT-5.5 Instant scores higher on coding benchmarks: 44.3 versus 22.6 in the Noometry coding category.

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

13 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-5.5 Instant has 27 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has 31.

Related comparisons

Go deeper