Model comparison
Qwen2.5 32B Instruct vs Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
Qwen2.5-Coder-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.4 to 30.1 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 3 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen2.5 32B Instruct scores higher in 1 category and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B in 3 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen2.5-Coder-32B leads 33.3 to 16.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is BigCodeBench Complete: 52.3% for Qwen2.5 32B Instruct and 58% for Qwen2.5-Coder-32B.
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B is cheaper at $0.66 / $1 per million input/output tokens, against $0.70 / $2.80 for Qwen2.5 32B Instruct.
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct accepts more context: 131K tokens versus 33K.
Side by side
| Qwen2.5 32B Instruct | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 30.1 | 33.4 |
| Released | 2024-09 | 2024-09-18 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 131K | 33K |
| Max output | 8K | 29K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.70 | $0.66 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2.80 | $1 |
| Results tracked | 7 | 31 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen2.5 32B Instruct leads
Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 38.7 (#169), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 22.6 (#333)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 45% | 49% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 52.3% | 58% |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | — | 9% |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 16.4% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 56.9% |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1276 |
| HumanEval+ | — | 87.2% |
| MBPP+ | — | 77% |
Reasoning Qwen2.5-Coder-32B leads
Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 19.2 (#266), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 21.2 (#225)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 128.52 | 119.49 |
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 42.1% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1251 |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 49.9% |
| HellaSwag | — | 83% |
| LiveBench | — | 46.2% |
| WinoGrande | — | 80.8% |
Math Qwen2.5-Coder-32B leads
Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 16.2 (#296), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.3 (#204)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 7.4% | — |
| LiveBench Math | — | 46.6% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1251 |
| MATH Level 5 | 56.1% | — |
| GSM8K | — | 93% |
Knowledge Qwen2.5-Coder-32B leads
Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 24.9 (#266), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.4 (#203)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 46.1% | — |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1221 |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 70.5% |
| MMLU | — | 79.1% |
Multilingual Not comparable
Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —, Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 37.8 (#235)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1205 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1222 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1228 |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —, Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 61.4 (#245)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 58.7% |
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1223 |
Long Context Not comparable
Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —, Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 38.0 (#208)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1251 |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —, Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 41.6 (#240)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1230 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1174 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1222 |
| LiveBench Language | — | 23.3% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Qwen2.5 32B Instruct better than Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?
Qwen2.5-Coder-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.4 to 30.1 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Qwen2.5 32B Instruct or Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?
Qwen2.5-Coder-32B is cheaper. It lists at $0.66 per million input tokens and $1 per million output tokens; Qwen2.5 32B Instruct lists at $0.70 and $2.80.
Is Qwen2.5 32B Instruct or Qwen2.5-Coder-32B better for coding?
Qwen2.5 32B Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.7 versus 22.6 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen2.5 32B Instruct does, with 131K tokens against 33K.
How many benchmarks do Qwen2.5 32B Instruct and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B share?
3 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen2.5 32B Instruct has 7 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has 31.