Model comparison
Qwen2.5 32B Instruct vs Qwen3.5-Flash
Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.5 to 30.1 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 4 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 4 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen2.5 32B Instruct scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3.5-Flash in 3 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.5-Flash leads 37.4 to 16.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 7.4% for Qwen2.5 32B Instruct and 84.4% for Qwen3.5-Flash.
- Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $0.70 / $2.80 for Qwen2.5 32B Instruct.
- Qwen3.5-Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 131K.
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Qwen2.5 32B Instruct | Qwen3.5-Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 30.1 | 42.5 |
| Released | 2024-09 | 2026-02-23 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 131K | 1M |
| Max output | 8K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.70 | $0.10 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2.80 | $0.40 |
| Results tracked | 7 | 32 |
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), Qwen3.5-Flash: 34.2 (#242)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1244 |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 45% | — |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1412 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 52.3% | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 221.8 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: —
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 462.69 |
Reasoning Qwen3.5-Flash leads
Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 19.2 (#266), Qwen3.5-Flash: 33.7 (#72)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | 21% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 128.52 | 143.98 |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1403 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 20% |
| DTBench | — | 82.9% |
| LMCA | — | 29.1% |
Math Qwen3.5-Flash leads
Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 16.2 (#296), Qwen3.5-Flash: 37.4 (#158)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 7.4% | 84.4% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 18.2% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1407 |
| MATH Level 5 | 56.1% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 6.2% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 0% |
Knowledge Qwen3.5-Flash leads
Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 24.9 (#266), Qwen3.5-Flash: 43.2 (#93)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 46.1% | 82.3% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 20.3% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 10.5% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1407 |
Multilingual Not comparable
Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: 50.5 (#121)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1385 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1446 |
| LMArena French | — | 1412 |
| LMArena German | — | 1390 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1368 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1344 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1379 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1400 |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: 72.6 (#139)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1374 |
Long Context Not comparable
Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: 42.4 (#124)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1392 |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: 57.9 (#122)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1397 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1343 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1393 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Qwen2.5 32B Instruct better than Qwen3.5-Flash?
Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.5 to 30.1 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Qwen2.5 32B Instruct or Qwen3.5-Flash?
Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Qwen2.5 32B Instruct lists at $0.70 and $2.80.
Is Qwen2.5 32B Instruct or Qwen3.5-Flash better for coding?
Qwen2.5 32B Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.7 versus 34.2 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.5-Flash does, with 1M tokens against 131K.
How many benchmarks do Qwen2.5 32B Instruct and Qwen3.5-Flash share?
4 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen2.5 32B Instruct has 7 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-Flash has 32.