Noometry

Model comparison

Qwen1.5-32B vs Qwen3.7 Plus

Qwen3.7 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.3 to 30.5 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.

Qwen1.5-32B Alibaba (Qwen)

30.5

Rank #293 Confirmed

Qwen3.7 Plus Alibaba (Qwen)

45.3

Rank #72 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen1.5-32B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.7 Plus in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.7 Plus leads 54.9 to 13.5.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 30.7% for Qwen1.5-32B and 87.9% for Qwen3.7 Plus.
  • Qwen1.5-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Qwen1.5-32BQwen3.7 Plus
ProviderAlibaba (Qwen)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index30.545.3
Released2024-02-042026-06-02
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window—1M
Max output—131K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.40
Output $ / M tokens—$1.60
Results tracked2132

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.7 Plus leads

Qwen1.5-32B: 31.7 (#282), Qwen3.7 Plus: 36.6 (#206)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-32BQwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Coding11551473
FrontierCode—10.2%
SciCode—45.5%
BigCodeBench Instruct32.3%—
BigCodeBench Complete42%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Qwen1.5-32B: —, Qwen3.7 Plus: 21.4 (#138)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-32BQwen3.7 Plus
OSWorld 2.0—2.8%

Reasoning Qwen3.7 Plus leads

Qwen1.5-32B: 21.8 (#212), Qwen3.7 Plus: 39.3 (#59)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-32BQwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Hard Prompts11301460
NYT Connections (extended)—74.8%
CritPt—9.1%
Chess Puzzles—24%
Mystery Game Puzzles—17%
DTBench—84%
LMCA—37.6%
Epoch Capabilities Index—147.37

Math Qwen3.7 Plus leads

Qwen1.5-32B: 33.0 (#207), Qwen3.7 Plus: 50.5 (#56)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-32BQwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Math11551466
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—34.4%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—93.3%

Knowledge Qwen3.7 Plus leads

Qwen1.5-32B: 13.5 (#296), Qwen3.7 Plus: 54.9 (#51)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-32BQwen3.7 Plus
GPQA Diamond30.7%87.9%
LMArena Expert11261467
MMLU74.4%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Qwen1.5-32B: —, Qwen3.7 Plus: 41.8 (#33)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-32BQwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Vision—1279
LMArena Document—1444

Multilingual Qwen3.7 Plus leads

Qwen1.5-32B: 31.4 (#259), Qwen3.7 Plus: 54.8 (#38)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-32BQwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Non-English11061445
LMArena Chinese11771510
LMArena French11011473
LMArena German10581471
LMArena Japanese10271413
LMArena Korean10081415
LMArena Russian10731457
LMArena Spanish10891457

Instruction Following Qwen3.7 Plus leads

Qwen1.5-32B: 57.7 (#265), Qwen3.7 Plus: 75.8 (#52)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-32BQwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Instruction Following11161440

Long Context Qwen3.7 Plus leads

Qwen1.5-32B: 34.7 (#246), Qwen3.7 Plus: 44.5 (#65)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-32BQwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Longer Query11461455

Writing & Preference Qwen3.7 Plus leads

Qwen1.5-32B: 34.2 (#271), Qwen3.7 Plus: 64.3 (#56)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-32BQwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Text11371455
LMArena Creative Writing10831439
LMArena Multi-Turn11401460

Frequently asked questions

Is Qwen1.5-32B better than Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.3 to 30.5 on the Noometry Index.

Is Qwen1.5-32B or Qwen3.7 Plus better for coding?

Qwen3.7 Plus scores higher on coding benchmarks: 36.6 versus 31.7 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Qwen1.5-32B and Qwen3.7 Plus share?

18 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen1.5-32B has 21 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Plus has 32.

Related comparisons

Go deeper