Noometry

Model comparison

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo vs Qwen3 32B

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.8 to 39.2 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 16 shared benchmarks.

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo Moonshot AI

45.8

Rank #70 Confirmed

Qwen3 32B Alibaba (Qwen)

39.2

Rank #172 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen3 32B in 1 category; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo leads 32.5 to 20.2.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 84.2% for Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo and 65.7% for Qwen3 32B.

Side by side

Kimi K2 Thinking TurboQwen3 32B
ProviderMoonshot AIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index45.839.2
Released2025-11-062025-04
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window—131K
Max output—16K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.70
Output $ / M tokens—$2.80
Results tracked2126

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

Category by category

Coding Too close to call

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 38.4 (#178), Qwen3 32B: 37.7 (#190)

BenchmarkKimi K2 Thinking TurboQwen3 32B
LMArena Coding14541358
Aider Polyglot—40%
LMArena WebDev1322—
SciCode—35.4%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: —, Qwen3 32B: 32.6 (#62)

BenchmarkKimi K2 Thinking TurboQwen3 32B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—48.7%

Reasoning Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo leads

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 32.5 (#75), Qwen3 32B: 20.2 (#241)

BenchmarkKimi K2 Thinking TurboQwen3 32B
Chess Puzzles20%5%
LMArena Hard Prompts14281334
Kagi LLM Benchmark—54.9%
CritPt—0.3%
DTBench—67.5%
LMCA—17.3%
Epoch Capabilities Index—138.51

Math Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo leads

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 47.4 (#68), Qwen3 32B: 39.7 (#99)

BenchmarkKimi K2 Thinking TurboQwen3 32B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202583.1%66.9%
LMArena Math14291399

Knowledge Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo leads

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 50.9 (#69), Qwen3 32B: 40.0 (#125)

BenchmarkKimi K2 Thinking TurboQwen3 32B
GPQA Diamond84.2%65.7%
LMArena Expert14391362
Vectara Hallucination Rate—5.9%

Multilingual Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo leads

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 51.4 (#109), Qwen3 32B: 45.6 (#167)

BenchmarkKimi K2 Thinking TurboQwen3 32B
LMArena Non-English13981317
LMArena Chinese14561357
LMArena German13901341
LMArena Russian13911311
LMArena French1425—
LMArena Japanese1357—
LMArena Korean1330—
LMArena Spanish1406—

Instruction Following Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo leads

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 74.0 (#109), Qwen3 32B: 68.9 (#179)

BenchmarkKimi K2 Thinking TurboQwen3 32B
LMArena Instruction Following14031305

Long Context Too close to call

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 43.2 (#102), Qwen3 32B: 43.8 (#87)

BenchmarkKimi K2 Thinking TurboQwen3 32B
LMArena Longer Query14151327
Fiction.LiveBench—74.2%

Writing & Preference Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo leads

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 60.0 (#104), Qwen3 32B: 52.9 (#163)

BenchmarkKimi K2 Thinking TurboQwen3 32B
LMArena Text14151340
LMArena Creative Writing13741297
LMArena Multi-Turn14141331

Frequently asked questions

Is Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo better than Qwen3 32B?

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.8 to 39.2 on the Noometry Index.

Is Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo or Qwen3 32B better for coding?

They score almost the same on coding (38.4 vs 37.7); test both on your own repository before choosing.

How many benchmarks do Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo and Qwen3 32B share?

16 benchmarks have published results for both models. Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo has 21 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 32B has 26.

Related comparisons

Go deeper