Noometry

Model comparison

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning vs Qwen2.5 32B Instruct

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.3 to 29.7 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning NVIDIA

39.3

Rank #156 Confirmed

Qwen2.5 32B Instruct Alibaba (Qwen)

29.7

Rank #291 Confirmed

Summary

  • The widest gap is in math, where Nemotron 3.5 Lightning leads 34.7 to 15.3.
  • Nemotron 3.5 Lightning is cheaper at $0.06 / $0.16 per million input/output tokens, against $0.70 / $2.80 for Qwen2.5 32B Instruct.
  • Nemotron 3.5 Lightning accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 131K.

Side by side

Nemotron 3.5 LightningQwen2.5 32B Instruct
ProviderNVIDIAAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index39.329.7
Released2026-08-112024-09
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window262K131K
Max output262K8K
Input $ / M tokens$0.06$0.70
Output $ / M tokens$0.16$2.80
Results tracked187

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

Category by category

Coding Nemotron 3.5 Lightning leads

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning: 39.6 (#143), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 38.1 (#165)

BenchmarkNemotron 3.5 LightningQwen2.5 32B Instruct
BigCodeBench Instruct—45%
LMArena Coding1370—
BigCodeBench Complete—52.3%

Reasoning Nemotron 3.5 Lightning leads

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning: 25.7 (#128), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 18.5 (#262)

BenchmarkNemotron 3.5 LightningQwen2.5 32B Instruct
Chess Puzzles—0%
LMArena Hard Prompts1335—
Epoch Capabilities Index—128.52

Math Nemotron 3.5 Lightning leads

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning: 34.7 (#156), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 15.3 (#289)

BenchmarkNemotron 3.5 LightningQwen2.5 32B Instruct
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—7.4%
LMArena Math1355—
MATH Level 5—56.1%

Knowledge Nemotron 3.5 Lightning leads

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning: 36.9 (#154), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 24.9 (#259)

BenchmarkNemotron 3.5 LightningQwen2.5 32B Instruct
GPQA Diamond—46.1%
LMArena Expert1354—

Multilingual Not comparable

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning: 44.0 (#175), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

BenchmarkNemotron 3.5 LightningQwen2.5 32B Instruct
LMArena Non-English1292—
LMArena Chinese1356—
LMArena French1369—
LMArena German1280—
LMArena Japanese1213—
LMArena Korean1233—
LMArena Russian1257—
LMArena Spanish1321—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning: 69.8 (#166), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

BenchmarkNemotron 3.5 LightningQwen2.5 32B Instruct
LMArena Instruction Following1317—

Long Context Not comparable

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning: 39.9 (#160), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

BenchmarkNemotron 3.5 LightningQwen2.5 32B Instruct
LMArena Longer Query1312—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning: 48.5 (#198), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

BenchmarkNemotron 3.5 LightningQwen2.5 32B Instruct
LMArena Text1324—
LMArena Creative Writing1254—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1280—
LMArena Multi-Turn1327—

Frequently asked questions

Is Nemotron 3.5 Lightning better than Qwen2.5 32B Instruct?

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.3 to 29.7 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Nemotron 3.5 Lightning or Qwen2.5 32B Instruct?

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning is cheaper. It lists at $0.06 per million input tokens and $0.16 per million output tokens; Qwen2.5 32B Instruct lists at $0.70 and $2.80.

Is Nemotron 3.5 Lightning or Qwen2.5 32B Instruct better for coding?

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.6 versus 38.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning does, with 262K tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks do Nemotron 3.5 Lightning and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Nemotron 3.5 Lightning has 18 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct has 7.

Related comparisons

Go deeper