Noometry

Model comparison

Qwen1.5-32B vs Qwen3.8 Max

Qwen3.8 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.8 to 30.5 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.

Qwen1.5-32B Alibaba (Qwen)

30.5

Rank #293 Confirmed

Qwen3.8 Max Alibaba (Qwen)

56.8

Rank #22 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen1.5-32B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.8 Max in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.8 Max leads 61.7 to 13.5.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 30.7% for Qwen1.5-32B and 92.7% for Qwen3.8 Max.
  • Qwen1.5-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Qwen1.5-32BQwen3.8 Max
ProviderAlibaba (Qwen)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index30.556.8
Released2024-02-042026-08-02
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window—1M
Max output—131K
Input $ / M tokens—$2
Output $ / M tokens—$6
Results tracked2139

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.8 Max leads

Qwen1.5-32B: 31.7 (#282), Qwen3.8 Max: 53.5 (#29)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-32BQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Coding11551502
DeepSWE—57.5%
LMArena WebDev—1674
FrontierSWE—17.8%
SciCode—53.2%
BigCodeBench Instruct32.3%—
BigCodeBench Complete42%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Qwen1.5-32B: —, Qwen3.8 Max: 45.4 (#14)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-32BQwen3.8 Max
APEX-Agents—63.3%
τ²-bench Banking—55.1%
GDP.pdf—23.2%

Reasoning Qwen3.8 Max leads

Qwen1.5-32B: 21.8 (#212), Qwen3.8 Max: 54.4 (#26)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-32BQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Hard Prompts11301496
NYT Connections (extended)—88.3%
CritPt—20%
Chess Puzzles—40%
Mystery Game Puzzles—38%
DTBench—92%
LMCA—46.2%
Epoch Capabilities Index—156.41

Math Qwen3.8 Max leads

Qwen1.5-32B: 33.0 (#207), Qwen3.8 Max: 73.2 (#20)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-32BQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Math11551499
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—74.7%
FrontierMath Tier 4—46.3%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—100%
ProofBench—58%

Knowledge Qwen3.8 Max leads

Qwen1.5-32B: 13.5 (#296), Qwen3.8 Max: 61.7 (#27)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-32BQwen3.8 Max
GPQA Diamond30.7%92.7%
LMArena Expert11261507
SimpleQA Verified—47.3%
MMLU74.4%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Qwen1.5-32B: —, Qwen3.8 Max: 37.2 (#75)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-32BQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Vision—1314
Furniture Assembly—20%

Multilingual Qwen3.8 Max leads

Qwen1.5-32B: 31.4 (#259), Qwen3.8 Max: 56.7 (#18)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-32BQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Non-English11061472
LMArena Chinese11771538
LMArena French11011503
LMArena German10581483
LMArena Japanese10271467
LMArena Korean10081461
LMArena Russian10731481
LMArena Spanish10891492

Instruction Following Qwen3.8 Max leads

Qwen1.5-32B: 57.7 (#265), Qwen3.8 Max: 77.6 (#17)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-32BQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Instruction Following11161479

Long Context Qwen3.8 Max leads

Qwen1.5-32B: 34.7 (#246), Qwen3.8 Max: 45.6 (#31)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-32BQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Longer Query11461489

Writing & Preference Qwen3.8 Max leads

Qwen1.5-32B: 34.2 (#271), Qwen3.8 Max: 67.1 (#30)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-32BQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Text11371483
LMArena Creative Writing10831479
LMArena Multi-Turn11401489

Frequently asked questions

Is Qwen1.5-32B better than Qwen3.8 Max?

Qwen3.8 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.8 to 30.5 on the Noometry Index.

Is Qwen1.5-32B or Qwen3.8 Max better for coding?

Qwen3.8 Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.5 versus 31.7 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Qwen1.5-32B and Qwen3.8 Max share?

18 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen1.5-32B has 21 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.8 Max has 39.

Related comparisons

Go deeper