Model comparison

o3-pro vs Qwen3 32B

o3-pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.9 to 39.2 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3 32B costs 29× less per token, which makes it the better buy when o3-pro's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 7 shared benchmarks.

o3-pro OpenAI

42.9

Rank #105 Confirmed

Qwen3 32B Alibaba (Qwen)

39.2

Rank #172 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 7 benchmarks with published results for both. o3-pro scores higher in 4 categories and Qwen3 32B in 1 category; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in long context, where o3-pro leads 72.2 to 43.8.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is Aider Polyglot: 84.9% for o3-pro and 40% for Qwen3 32B.
  • Qwen3 32B is cheaper at $0.70 / $2.80 per million input/output tokens, against $20 / $80 for o3-pro.
  • o3-pro accepts more context: 200K tokens versus 131K.
  • Qwen3 32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

o3-pro and Qwen3 32B specifications
o3-proQwen3 32B
ProviderOpenAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index42.939.2
Released2025-06-102025-04
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window200K131K
Max output100K16K
Input $ / M tokens$20$0.70
Output $ / M tokens$80$2.80
Results tracked1226

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

Category by category

Coding o3-pro leads

o3-pro: 55.5 (#24), Qwen3 32B: 37.7 (#190)

Coding benchmarks
Benchmarko3-proQwen3 32B
Aider Polyglot84.9%40%
SciCode—35.4%
WeirdML58.2%—
LMArena Coding—1358

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

o3-pro: —, Qwen3 32B: 32.6 (#62)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
Benchmarko3-proQwen3 32B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—48.7%

Reasoning o3-pro leads

o3-pro: 23.8 (#171), Qwen3 32B: 20.2 (#241)

Reasoning benchmarks
Benchmarko3-proQwen3 32B
Kagi LLM Benchmark72.1%54.9%
DTBench86.9%67.5%
LMCA38.5%17.3%
Epoch Capabilities Index147.42138.51
ARC-AGI-24.9%—
ARC-AGI-159.3%—
CritPt—0.3%
Chess Puzzles—5%
LMArena Hard Prompts—1334

Math Not comparable

o3-pro: —, Qwen3 32B: 39.7 (#99)

Math benchmarks
Benchmarko3-proQwen3 32B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—66.9%
LMArena Math—1399

Knowledge Qwen3 32B leads

o3-pro: 29.5 (#238), Qwen3 32B: 40.0 (#125)

Knowledge benchmarks
Benchmarko3-proQwen3 32B
Vectara Hallucination Rate23.3%5.9%
GPQA Diamond—65.7%
Confabulations14.2%—
LMArena Expert—1362

Multilingual Not comparable

o3-pro: —, Qwen3 32B: 45.6 (#167)

Multilingual benchmarks
Benchmarko3-proQwen3 32B
LMArena Non-English—1317
LMArena Chinese—1357
LMArena German—1341
LMArena Russian—1311

Instruction Following Not comparable

o3-pro: —, Qwen3 32B: 68.9 (#179)

Instruction Following benchmarks
Benchmarko3-proQwen3 32B
LMArena Instruction Following—1305

Long Context o3-pro leads

o3-pro: 72.2 (#1), Qwen3 32B: 43.8 (#87)

Long Context benchmarks
Benchmarko3-proQwen3 32B
Fiction.LiveBench97.2%74.2%
LMArena Longer Query—1327

Writing & Preference o3-pro leads

o3-pro: 57.1 (#133), Qwen3 32B: 52.9 (#163)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
Benchmarko3-proQwen3 32B
LMArena Text—1340
LMArena Creative Writing—1297
Short-Story Creative Writing84.4%—
LMArena Multi-Turn—1331

Frequently asked questions

Is o3-pro better than Qwen3 32B?

o3-pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.9 to 39.2 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3 32B costs 29× less per token, which makes it the better buy when o3-pro's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, o3-pro or Qwen3 32B?

Qwen3 32B is cheaper. It lists at $0.70 per million input tokens and $2.80 per million output tokens; o3-pro lists at $20 and $80.

Is o3-pro or Qwen3 32B better for coding?

o3-pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 55.5 versus 37.7 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

o3-pro does, with 200K tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks do o3-pro and Qwen3 32B share?

7 benchmarks have published results for both models. o3-pro has 12 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 32B has 26.

Related comparisons

Go deeper