Noometry

Model comparison

Grok 4.3 vs Qwen3 32B

Grok 4.3 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.6 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 21 shared benchmarks.

Grok 4.3 xAI

43.6

Rank #80 Confirmed

Qwen3 32B Alibaba (Qwen)

38.8

Rank #166 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 21 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.3 scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen3 32B in 2 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Grok 4.3 leads 34.9 to 19.6.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 93.3% for Grok 4.3 and 66.9% for Qwen3 32B.
  • Qwen3 32B is cheaper at $0.70 / $2.80 per million input/output tokens, against $1.25 / $2.50 for Grok 4.3.
  • Grok 4.3 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 131K.
  • Qwen3 32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Grok 4.3Qwen3 32B
ProviderxAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index43.638.8
Released2026-04-172025-04
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M131K
Max output30K16K
Input $ / M tokens$1.25$0.70
Output $ / M tokens$2.50$2.80
Results tracked4026

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

Category by category

Coding Grok 4.3 leads

Grok 4.3: 41.3 (#117), Qwen3 32B: 37.3 (#184)

BenchmarkGrok 4.3Qwen3 32B
SciCode47.3%35.4%
LMArena Coding14151358
Aider Polyglot—40%
LMArena WebDev1357—
WeirdML49.9%—
ALE-Bench944.17—

Agentic & Tool Use Qwen3 32B leads

Grok 4.3: 27.6 (#93), Qwen3 32B: 32.3 (#58)

BenchmarkGrok 4.3Qwen3 32B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—48.7%
GDP.pdf8%—
LMArena Search1165—
Vending-Bench 235.26—

Reasoning Grok 4.3 leads

Grok 4.3: 34.9 (#60), Qwen3 32B: 19.6 (#233)

BenchmarkGrok 4.3Qwen3 32B
CritPt8%0.3%
Chess Puzzles25%5%
LMArena Hard Prompts13971335
DTBench90.7%67.5%
LMCA38.3%17.3%
Epoch Capabilities Index149.13138.51
Kagi LLM Benchmark—54.9%
NYT Connections (extended)55.2%—
ForecastBench60.3—

Math Grok 4.3 leads

Grok 4.3: 45.8 (#60), Qwen3 32B: 37.9 (#89)

BenchmarkGrok 4.3Qwen3 32B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202593.3%66.9%
LMArena Math13881399
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)42.8%—
FrontierMath Tier 414.6%—
ProofBench11%—

Knowledge Grok 4.3 leads

Grok 4.3: 52.5 (#57), Qwen3 32B: 40.0 (#112)

BenchmarkGrok 4.3Qwen3 32B
GPQA Diamond88.8%65.7%
LMArena Expert13851362
SimpleQA Verified33.2%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate—5.9%

Multimodal Not comparable

Grok 4.3: 31.6 (#96), Qwen3 32B: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.3Qwen3 32B
LMArena Vision1231—
Blueprint-Bench 20%—

Multilingual Grok 4.3 leads

Grok 4.3: 50.7 (#114), Qwen3 32B: 45.8 (#162)

BenchmarkGrok 4.3Qwen3 32B
LMArena Non-English13851317
LMArena Chinese14231357
LMArena German13951341
LMArena Russian13991311
LMArena French1412—
LMArena Japanese1379—
LMArena Korean1357—
LMArena Spanish1402—

Instruction Following Grok 4.3 leads

Grok 4.3: 72.3 (#135), Qwen3 32B: 69.1 (#174)

BenchmarkGrok 4.3Qwen3 32B
LMArena Instruction Following13661305

Long Context Qwen3 32B leads

Grok 4.3: 42.5 (#118), Qwen3 32B: 43.7 (#83)

BenchmarkGrok 4.3Qwen3 32B
LMArena Longer Query13931327
Fiction.LiveBench—74.2%

Writing & Preference Grok 4.3 leads

Grok 4.3: 58.6 (#112), Qwen3 32B: 53.1 (#158)

BenchmarkGrok 4.3Qwen3 32B
LMArena Text13971340
LMArena Creative Writing13801297
LMArena Multi-Turn14061331
EQ-Bench 41075—

Frequently asked questions

Is Grok 4.3 better than Qwen3 32B?

Grok 4.3 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.6 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Grok 4.3 or Qwen3 32B?

Qwen3 32B is cheaper. It lists at $0.70 per million input tokens and $2.80 per million output tokens; Grok 4.3 lists at $1.25 and $2.50.

Is Grok 4.3 or Qwen3 32B better for coding?

Grok 4.3 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.3 versus 37.3 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Grok 4.3 does, with 1M tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks do Grok 4.3 and Qwen3 32B share?

21 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.3 has 40 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 32B has 26.

Related comparisons

Go deeper