Model comparison
Nova 2.0 Pro Preview vs Qwen3 32B
Qwen3 32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.2 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. Nova 2.0 Pro Preview scores higher in 2 categories and Qwen3 32B in 1 category; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in agentic & tool use, where Qwen3 32B leads 32.6 to 21.9.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is SciCode: 42.7% for Nova 2.0 Pro Preview and 35.4% for Qwen3 32B.
- Qwen3 32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Nova 2.0 Pro Preview | Qwen3 32B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Amazon | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 33.4 | 39.2 |
| Released | 2025-12-02 | 2025-04 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | 131K |
| Max output | — | 16K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.70 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $2.80 |
| Results tracked | 3 | 26 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Nova 2.0 Pro Preview leads
Nova 2.0 Pro Preview: 40.8 (#133), Qwen3 32B: 37.7 (#190)
| Benchmark | Nova 2.0 Pro Preview | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 42.7% | 35.4% |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 40% |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1358 |
Agentic & Tool Use Qwen3 32B leads
Nova 2.0 Pro Preview: 21.9 (#136), Qwen3 32B: 32.6 (#62)
| Benchmark | Nova 2.0 Pro Preview | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 48.7% |
| GDP.pdf | 2% | — |
Reasoning Nova 2.0 Pro Preview leads
Nova 2.0 Pro Preview: 22.4 (#194), Qwen3 32B: 20.2 (#241)
| Benchmark | Nova 2.0 Pro Preview | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 0% | 0.3% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 54.9% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 5% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1334 |
| DTBench | — | 67.5% |
| LMCA | — | 17.3% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 138.51 |
Math Not comparable
Nova 2.0 Pro Preview: —, Qwen3 32B: 39.7 (#99)
| Benchmark | Nova 2.0 Pro Preview | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 66.9% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1399 |
Knowledge Not comparable
Nova 2.0 Pro Preview: —, Qwen3 32B: 40.0 (#125)
| Benchmark | Nova 2.0 Pro Preview | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 65.7% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 5.9% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1362 |
Multilingual Not comparable
Nova 2.0 Pro Preview: —, Qwen3 32B: 45.6 (#167)
| Benchmark | Nova 2.0 Pro Preview | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1317 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1357 |
| LMArena German | — | 1341 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1311 |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Nova 2.0 Pro Preview: —, Qwen3 32B: 68.9 (#179)
| Benchmark | Nova 2.0 Pro Preview | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1305 |
Long Context Not comparable
Nova 2.0 Pro Preview: —, Qwen3 32B: 43.8 (#87)
| Benchmark | Nova 2.0 Pro Preview | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 74.2% |
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1327 |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Nova 2.0 Pro Preview: —, Qwen3 32B: 52.9 (#163)
| Benchmark | Nova 2.0 Pro Preview | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1340 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1297 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1331 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Nova 2.0 Pro Preview better than Qwen3 32B?
Qwen3 32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.2 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index.
Is Nova 2.0 Pro Preview or Qwen3 32B better for coding?
Nova 2.0 Pro Preview scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.8 versus 37.7 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Nova 2.0 Pro Preview and Qwen3 32B share?
2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Nova 2.0 Pro Preview has 3 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 32B has 26.