Model comparison
Qwen1.5 4b Chat vs Qwen3 32B
Qwen3 32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.2 to 28.8 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen1.5 4b Chat scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3 32B in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen3 32B leads 52.9 to 23.8.
Side by side
| Qwen1.5 4b Chat | Qwen3 32B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 28.8 | 39.2 |
| Released | — | 2025-04 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | 131K |
| Max output | — | 16K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.70 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $2.80 |
| Results tracked | 13 | 26 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3 32B leads
Qwen1.5 4b Chat: 29.1 (#308), Qwen3 32B: 37.7 (#190)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5 4b Chat | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 999 | 1358 |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 40% |
| SciCode | — | 35.4% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Qwen1.5 4b Chat: —, Qwen3 32B: 32.6 (#62)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5 4b Chat | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 48.7% |
Reasoning Qwen3 32B leads
Qwen1.5 4b Chat: 18.5 (#279), Qwen3 32B: 20.2 (#241)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5 4b Chat | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 976 | 1334 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 54.9% |
| CritPt | — | 0.3% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 5% |
| DTBench | — | 67.5% |
| LMCA | — | 17.3% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 138.51 |
Math Qwen3 32B leads
Qwen1.5 4b Chat: 30.4 (#234), Qwen3 32B: 39.7 (#99)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5 4b Chat | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1026 | 1399 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 66.9% |
Knowledge Qwen3 32B leads
Qwen1.5 4b Chat: 26.7 (#255), Qwen3 32B: 40.0 (#125)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5 4b Chat | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 980 | 1362 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 65.7% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 5.9% |
Multilingual Qwen3 32B leads
Qwen1.5 4b Chat: 24.1 (#290), Qwen3 32B: 45.6 (#167)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5 4b Chat | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 979 | 1317 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1024 | 1357 |
| LMArena German | 902 | 1341 |
| LMArena Russian | 952 | 1311 |
Instruction Following Qwen3 32B leads
Qwen1.5 4b Chat: 49.0 (#300), Qwen3 32B: 68.9 (#179)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5 4b Chat | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 978 | 1305 |
Long Context Qwen3 32B leads
Qwen1.5 4b Chat: 30.1 (#290), Qwen3 32B: 43.8 (#87)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5 4b Chat | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 988 | 1327 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 74.2% |
Writing & Preference Qwen3 32B leads
Qwen1.5 4b Chat: 23.8 (#309), Qwen3 32B: 52.9 (#163)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5 4b Chat | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 997 | 1340 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 969 | 1297 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 977 | 1331 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Qwen1.5 4b Chat better than Qwen3 32B?
Qwen3 32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.2 to 28.8 on the Noometry Index.
Is Qwen1.5 4b Chat or Qwen3 32B better for coding?
Qwen3 32B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.7 versus 29.1 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Qwen1.5 4b Chat and Qwen3 32B share?
13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen1.5 4b Chat has 13 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 32B has 26.