Model comparison
o3 vs Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
o3 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.5 to 30.1 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5 32B Instruct costs 2.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when o3's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 5 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 5 benchmarks with published results for both. o3 scores higher in 4 categories and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct in 0 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where o3 leads 50.2 to 16.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 84.4% for o3 and 7.4% for Qwen2.5 32B Instruct.
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct is cheaper at $0.70 / $2.80 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $8 for o3.
- o3 accepts more context: 200K tokens versus 131K.
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| o3 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 47.5 | 30.1 |
| Released | 2025-04-16 | 2024-09 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 200K | 131K |
| Max output | 100K | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $2 | $0.70 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $8 | $2.80 |
| Results tracked | 63 | 7 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding o3 leads
o3: 46.8 (#64), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 38.7 (#169)
| Benchmark | o3 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | 62.3% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 58.4% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | 81.3% | — |
| GSO | 8.8% | — |
| WeirdML | 52.4% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 45% |
| LMArena Coding | 1408 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 52.3% |
| CadEval | 74% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 933.55 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
o3: 34.5 (#44), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | o3 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 63% | — |
| GDPval | 30.8% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 45.2% | — |
| OSWorld | 23% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1144 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 65.4% | — |
Reasoning o3 leads
o3: 32.0 (#78), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 19.2 (#266)
| Benchmark | o3 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 38% | 0% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 146.86 | 128.52 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 6.5% | — |
| SimpleBench | 53.1% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 67.6% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 60.8% | — |
| CritPt | 1.4% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 13.1% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1402 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 29% | — |
| DTBench | 84.8% | — |
| LMCA | 39.7% | — |
| ForecastBench | 62.5 | — |
Math o3 leads
o3: 50.2 (#58), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 16.2 (#296)
| Benchmark | o3 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 84.4% | 7.4% |
| MATH Level 5 | 97.8% | 56.1% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 33.3% | — |
| Omni-MATH | 71.4% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1426 | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 18.7% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 2.1% | — |
Knowledge o3 leads
o3: 54.6 (#52), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 24.9 (#266)
| Benchmark | o3 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 81.8% | 46.1% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 20.3% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 49.4% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 85.9% | — |
| Confabulations | 14.4% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 75.3% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1402 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
o3: 41.4 (#36), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | o3 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1214 | — |
| GeoBench | 74% | — |
| VPCT | 52% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
o3: 51.7 (#105), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | o3 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1401 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1437 | — |
| LMArena French | 1430 | — |
| LMArena German | 1420 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1403 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1370 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1406 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1395 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
o3: 72.8 (#127), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | o3 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| IFEval | 86.9% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1368 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
o3: 53.3 (#6), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | o3 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 88.9% | — |
| CL-bench | 17.8% | — |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1372 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
o3: 63.5 (#64), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | o3 | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1410 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1359 | — |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 83.9% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1676 | — |
| WildBench | 86.1% | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1405 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is o3 better than Qwen2.5 32B Instruct?
o3 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.5 to 30.1 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5 32B Instruct costs 2.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when o3's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, o3 or Qwen2.5 32B Instruct?
Qwen2.5 32B Instruct is cheaper. It lists at $0.70 per million input tokens and $2.80 per million output tokens; o3 lists at $2 and $8.
Is o3 or Qwen2.5 32B Instruct better for coding?
o3 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 46.8 versus 38.7 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
o3 does, with 200K tokens against 131K.
How many benchmarks do o3 and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct share?
5 benchmarks have published results for both models. o3 has 63 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct has 7.