Model comparison
Qwen1.5-32B vs QwQ-32B
QwQ-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.8 to 30.5 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 20 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 20 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen1.5-32B scores higher in 0 categories and QwQ-32B in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where QwQ-32B leads 37.2 to 13.5.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 30.7% for Qwen1.5-32B and 65.3% for QwQ-32B.
Side by side
| Qwen1.5-32B | QwQ-32B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 30.5 | 39.8 |
| Released | 2024-02-04 | 2024-11-28 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 21 | 36 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding QwQ-32B leads
Qwen1.5-32B: 31.7 (#282), QwQ-32B: 35.4 (#226)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-32B | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 32.3% | 44.6% |
| LMArena Coding | 1155 | 1333 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 42% | 54.4% |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 20.9% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 72.2% |
Reasoning QwQ-32B leads
Qwen1.5-32B: 21.8 (#212), QwQ-32B: 23.7 (#174)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-32B | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1130 | 1325 |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 5% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 83.5% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 65% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 137.6 |
| ForecastBench | — | 58.3 |
| LiveBench | — | 72% |
Math QwQ-32B leads
Qwen1.5-32B: 33.0 (#207), QwQ-32B: 38.0 (#143)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-32B | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1155 | 1359 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 59.2% |
| LiveBench Math | — | 77.8% |
Knowledge QwQ-32B leads
Qwen1.5-32B: 13.5 (#296), QwQ-32B: 37.2 (#158)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-32B | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 30.7% | 65.3% |
| LMArena Expert | 1126 | 1324 |
| Confabulations | — | 15.6% |
| MMLU | 74.4% | — |
Multilingual QwQ-32B leads
Qwen1.5-32B: 31.4 (#259), QwQ-32B: 44.8 (#176)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-32B | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1106 | 1305 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1177 | 1378 |
| LMArena French | 1101 | 1336 |
| LMArena German | 1058 | 1313 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1027 | 1262 |
| LMArena Korean | 1008 | 1279 |
| LMArena Russian | 1073 | 1297 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1089 | 1354 |
Instruction Following QwQ-32B leads
Qwen1.5-32B: 57.7 (#265), QwQ-32B: 72.6 (#137)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-32B | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1116 | 1297 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 81.8% |
Long Context QwQ-32B leads
Qwen1.5-32B: 34.7 (#246), QwQ-32B: 49.0 (#11)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-32B | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1146 | 1308 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 83.3% |
Writing & Preference QwQ-32B leads
Qwen1.5-32B: 34.2 (#271), QwQ-32B: 50.6 (#180)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-32B | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1137 | 1329 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1083 | 1288 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1140 | 1314 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 80.2% |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1257 |
| LiveBench Language | — | 51.4% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Qwen1.5-32B better than QwQ-32B?
QwQ-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.8 to 30.5 on the Noometry Index.
Is Qwen1.5-32B or QwQ-32B better for coding?
QwQ-32B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 35.4 versus 31.7 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Qwen1.5-32B and QwQ-32B share?
20 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen1.5-32B has 21 scored results on Noometry and QwQ-32B has 36.