Noometry

Model comparison

o4-mini vs Qwen1.5-32B

o4-mini is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.6 to 30.5 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.

o4-mini OpenAI

41.6

Rank #132 Confirmed

Qwen1.5-32B Alibaba (Qwen)

30.5

Rank #293 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. o4-mini scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen1.5-32B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where o4-mini leads 43.6 to 13.5.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 79.6% for o4-mini and 30.7% for Qwen1.5-32B.
  • Qwen1.5-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

o4-miniQwen1.5-32B
ProviderOpenAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index41.630.5
Released2025-04-162024-02-04
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window200K—
Max output100K—
Input $ / M tokens$1.10—
Output $ / M tokens$4.40—
Results tracked6021

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

Category by category

Coding o4-mini leads

o4-mini: 40.9 (#127), Qwen1.5-32B: 31.7 (#282)

Benchmarko4-miniQwen1.5-32B
LMArena Coding13681155
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)45%—
Aider Polyglot72%—
GSO3.6%—
WeirdML52.6%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—32.3%
BigCodeBench Complete—42%
CadEval62%—
ALE-Bench826.17—
AlgoTune1.72—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

o4-mini: 32.6 (#61), Qwen1.5-32B: —

Benchmarko4-miniQwen1.5-32B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard53.2%—
GDPval25.3%—
METR Time Horizons63.9%—

Reasoning o4-mini leads

o4-mini: 24.6 (#162), Qwen1.5-32B: 21.8 (#212)

Benchmarko4-miniQwen1.5-32B
LMArena Hard Prompts13511130
ARC-AGI-26.1%—
SimpleBench38.7%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark67.6%—
ARC-AGI-158.7%—
CritPt0.6%—
Chess Puzzles26%—
EnigmaEval9.2%—
Mystery Game Puzzles5%—
DTBench77.6%—
LMCA26.5%—
Epoch Capabilities Index145.64—
ForecastBench61.8—

Math o4-mini leads

o4-mini: 40.8 (#89), Qwen1.5-32B: 33.0 (#207)

Benchmarko4-miniQwen1.5-32B
LMArena Math13891155
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)36.1%—
FrontierMath Tier 44.9%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202581.7%—
Omni-MATH72%—
MATH Level 597.8%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)24.8%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)6.3%—

Knowledge o4-mini leads

o4-mini: 43.6 (#91), Qwen1.5-32B: 13.5 (#296)

Benchmarko4-miniQwen1.5-32B
GPQA Diamond79.6%30.7%
LMArena Expert13431126
Humanity's Last Exam18.1%—
SimpleQA Verified19.6%—
MMLU-Pro82%—
Confabulations15.8%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate18.6%—
GPQA (HELM)73.5%—
MMLU—74.4%

Multimodal Not comparable

o4-mini: 40.2 (#49), Qwen1.5-32B: —

Benchmarko4-miniQwen1.5-32B
LMArena Vision1194—
GeoBench64%—
VPCT57.5%—

Multilingual o4-mini leads

o4-mini: 47.0 (#154), Qwen1.5-32B: 31.4 (#259)

Benchmarko4-miniQwen1.5-32B
LMArena Non-English13371106
LMArena Chinese13541177
LMArena French13641101
LMArena German13361058
LMArena Japanese13081027
LMArena Korean13121008
LMArena Russian13341073
LMArena Spanish13471089

Instruction Following o4-mini leads

o4-mini: 75.2 (#68), Qwen1.5-32B: 57.7 (#265)

Benchmarko4-miniQwen1.5-32B
LMArena Instruction Following13211116
IFEval92.8%—

Long Context o4-mini leads

o4-mini: 45.5 (#33), Qwen1.5-32B: 34.7 (#246)

Benchmarko4-miniQwen1.5-32B
LMArena Longer Query13151146
Fiction.LiveBench77.8%—

Writing & Preference o4-mini leads

o4-mini: 54.0 (#152), Qwen1.5-32B: 34.2 (#271)

Benchmarko4-miniQwen1.5-32B
LMArena Text13531137
LMArena Creative Writing12941083
LMArena Multi-Turn13501140
Short-Story Creative Writing75%—
WildBench85.4%—

Frequently asked questions

Is o4-mini better than Qwen1.5-32B?

o4-mini is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.6 to 30.5 on the Noometry Index.

Is o4-mini or Qwen1.5-32B better for coding?

o4-mini scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.9 versus 31.7 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do o4-mini and Qwen1.5-32B share?

18 benchmarks have published results for both models. o4-mini has 60 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-32B has 21.

Related comparisons

Go deeper