Model comparison
o3-mini vs QwQ-32B
QwQ-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.8 to 36.7 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 33 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 33 benchmarks with published results for both. o3-mini scores higher in 4 categories and QwQ-32B in 4 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in long context, where QwQ-32B leads 49.0 to 33.8.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is Aider Polyglot: 60.4% for o3-mini and 20.9% for QwQ-32B.
- QwQ-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| o3-mini | QwQ-32B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 36.7 | 39.8 |
| Released | 2024-12-20 | 2024-11-28 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 200K | — |
| Max output | 100K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.10 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $4.40 | — |
| Results tracked | 51 | 36 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding o3-mini leads
o3-mini: 40.8 (#132), QwQ-32B: 35.4 (#226)
| Benchmark | o3-mini | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Aider Polyglot | 60.4% | 20.9% |
| LiveBench Coding | 82.7% | 72.2% |
| LMArena Coding | 1378 | 1333 |
| SciCode | 39.8% | — |
| GSO | 1.3% | — |
| WeirdML | 43.7% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 44.6% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 54.4% |
| CadEval | 54% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
o3-mini: 29.6 (#84), QwQ-32B: —
| Benchmark | o3-mini | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Cybench | 22.5% | — |
Reasoning QwQ-32B leads
o3-mini: 16.3 (#305), QwQ-32B: 23.7 (#174)
| Benchmark | o3-mini | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 17% | 5% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 89.6% | 83.5% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1366 | 1325 |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 70.6% | 65% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 140.34 | 137.6 |
| ForecastBench | 59.6 | 58.3 |
| LiveBench | 75.9% | 72% |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 3% | — |
| SimpleBench | 22.8% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 34.5% | — |
| CritPt | 0.3% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 7% | — |
| DTBench | 68.8% | — |
| LMCA | 19% | — |
Math QwQ-32B leads
o3-mini: 28.1 (#244), QwQ-32B: 38.0 (#143)
| Benchmark | o3-mini | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 76.9% | 59.2% |
| LiveBench Math | 77.3% | 77.8% |
| LMArena Math | 1396 | 1359 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 18.6% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 0% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 96.5% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 12.4% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | — |
Knowledge o3-mini leads
o3-mini: 38.3 (#146), QwQ-32B: 37.2 (#158)
| Benchmark | o3-mini | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 77% | 65.3% |
| Confabulations | 17.9% | 15.6% |
| LMArena Expert | 1364 | 1324 |
| SimpleQA Verified | 15.3% | — |
Multilingual Too close to call
o3-mini: 45.7 (#164), QwQ-32B: 44.8 (#176)
| Benchmark | o3-mini | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1319 | 1305 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1379 | 1378 |
| LMArena French | 1334 | 1336 |
| LMArena German | 1303 | 1313 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1286 | 1262 |
| LMArena Korean | 1314 | 1279 |
| LMArena Russian | 1304 | 1297 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1321 | 1354 |
Instruction Following o3-mini leads
o3-mini: 75.1 (#72), QwQ-32B: 72.6 (#137)
| Benchmark | o3-mini | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 84.4% | 81.8% |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1337 | 1297 |
Long Context QwQ-32B leads
o3-mini: 33.8 (#256), QwQ-32B: 49.0 (#11)
| Benchmark | o3-mini | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 50% | 83.3% |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1343 | 1308 |
Writing & Preference Too close to call
o3-mini: 50.3 (#182), QwQ-32B: 50.6 (#180)
| Benchmark | o3-mini | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1337 | 1329 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1286 | 1288 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 61.7% | 80.2% |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1320 | 1314 |
| LiveBench Language | 50.7% | 51.4% |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1257 |
Frequently asked questions
Is o3-mini better than QwQ-32B?
QwQ-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.8 to 36.7 on the Noometry Index.
Is o3-mini or QwQ-32B better for coding?
o3-mini scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.8 versus 35.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do o3-mini and QwQ-32B share?
33 benchmarks have published results for both models. o3-mini has 51 scored results on Noometry and QwQ-32B has 36.