Noometry

Model comparison

o3-mini vs Qwen1.5-32B

o3-mini is the stronger model overall, scoring 36.7 to 30.5 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.

o3-mini OpenAI

36.7

Rank #212 Confirmed

Qwen1.5-32B Alibaba (Qwen)

30.5

Rank #293 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. o3-mini scores higher in 5 categories and Qwen1.5-32B in 3 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where o3-mini leads 38.3 to 13.5.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 77% for o3-mini and 30.7% for Qwen1.5-32B.
  • Qwen1.5-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

o3-miniQwen1.5-32B
ProviderOpenAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index36.730.5
Released2024-12-202024-02-04
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window200K—
Max output100K—
Input $ / M tokens$1.10—
Output $ / M tokens$4.40—
Results tracked5121

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

Category by category

Coding o3-mini leads

o3-mini: 40.8 (#132), Qwen1.5-32B: 31.7 (#282)

Benchmarko3-miniQwen1.5-32B
LMArena Coding13781155
Aider Polyglot60.4%—
SciCode39.8%—
GSO1.3%—
WeirdML43.7%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—32.3%
LiveBench Coding82.7%—
BigCodeBench Complete—42%
CadEval54%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

o3-mini: 29.6 (#84), Qwen1.5-32B: —

Benchmarko3-miniQwen1.5-32B
Cybench22.5%—

Reasoning Qwen1.5-32B leads

o3-mini: 16.3 (#305), Qwen1.5-32B: 21.8 (#212)

Benchmarko3-miniQwen1.5-32B
LMArena Hard Prompts13661130
ARC-AGI-23%—
SimpleBench22.8%—
ARC-AGI-134.5%—
CritPt0.3%—
Chess Puzzles17%—
LiveBench Reasoning89.6%—
Mystery Game Puzzles7%—
DTBench68.8%—
LiveBench Data Analysis70.6%—
LMCA19%—
Epoch Capabilities Index140.34—
ForecastBench59.6—
LiveBench75.9%—

Math Qwen1.5-32B leads

o3-mini: 28.1 (#244), Qwen1.5-32B: 33.0 (#207)

Benchmarko3-miniQwen1.5-32B
LMArena Math13961155
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)18.6%—
FrontierMath Tier 40%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202576.9%—
LiveBench Math77.3%—
MATH Level 596.5%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)12.4%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)4.2%—

Knowledge o3-mini leads

o3-mini: 38.3 (#146), Qwen1.5-32B: 13.5 (#296)

Benchmarko3-miniQwen1.5-32B
GPQA Diamond77%30.7%
LMArena Expert13641126
SimpleQA Verified15.3%—
Confabulations17.9%—
MMLU—74.4%

Multilingual o3-mini leads

o3-mini: 45.7 (#164), Qwen1.5-32B: 31.4 (#259)

Benchmarko3-miniQwen1.5-32B
LMArena Non-English13191106
LMArena Chinese13791177
LMArena French13341101
LMArena German13031058
LMArena Japanese12861027
LMArena Korean13141008
LMArena Russian13041073
LMArena Spanish13211089

Instruction Following o3-mini leads

o3-mini: 75.1 (#72), Qwen1.5-32B: 57.7 (#265)

Benchmarko3-miniQwen1.5-32B
LMArena Instruction Following13371116
LiveBench Instruction Following84.4%—

Long Context Too close to call

o3-mini: 33.8 (#256), Qwen1.5-32B: 34.7 (#246)

Benchmarko3-miniQwen1.5-32B
LMArena Longer Query13431146
Fiction.LiveBench50%—

Writing & Preference o3-mini leads

o3-mini: 50.3 (#182), Qwen1.5-32B: 34.2 (#271)

Benchmarko3-miniQwen1.5-32B
LMArena Text13371137
LMArena Creative Writing12861083
LMArena Multi-Turn13201140
Short-Story Creative Writing61.7%—
LiveBench Language50.7%—

Frequently asked questions

Is o3-mini better than Qwen1.5-32B?

o3-mini is the stronger model overall, scoring 36.7 to 30.5 on the Noometry Index.

Is o3-mini or Qwen1.5-32B better for coding?

o3-mini scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.8 versus 31.7 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do o3-mini and Qwen1.5-32B share?

18 benchmarks have published results for both models. o3-mini has 51 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-32B has 21.

Related comparisons

Go deeper