Model comparison
Qwen2.5 32B Instruct vs Qwen3.6 Flash
Qwen3.6 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.4 to 29.7 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 0 categories and Qwen3.6 Flash in 3 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.6 Flash leads 38.0 to 15.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 7.4% for Qwen2.5 32B Instruct and 84.4% for Qwen3.6 Flash.
- Qwen3.6 Flash is cheaper at $0.19 / $1.13 per million input/output tokens, against $0.70 / $2.80 for Qwen2.5 32B Instruct.
- Qwen3.6 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 | Qwen3.6 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 29.7 | 38.4 |
| Released | 2024-09 | 2026-04-27 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 131K | 1M |
| Max output | 8K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.70 | $0.19 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2.80 | $1.13 |
| Results tracked | 7 | 13 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 38.1 (#165), Qwen3.6 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 45% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 52.3% | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 326.4 |
Reasoning Qwen3.6 Flash leads
Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 18.5 (#262), Qwen3.6 Flash: 28.4 (#90)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | 20% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 128.52 | 143.26 |
| SimpleBench | — | 35.2% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 18% |
| DTBench | — | 77.1% |
| LMCA | — | 31% |
Math Qwen3.6 Flash leads
Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 15.3 (#289), Qwen3.6 Flash: 38.0 (#88)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 7.4% | 84.4% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 22.5% |
| MATH Level 5 | 56.1% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 10.3% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 0% |
Knowledge Qwen3.6 Flash leads
Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 24.9 (#259), Qwen3.6 Flash: 42.2 (#90)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 46.1% | 83.3% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 15.9% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Qwen2.5 32B Instruct better than Qwen3.6 Flash?
Qwen3.6 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.4 to 29.7 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Qwen2.5 32B Instruct or Qwen3.6 Flash?
Qwen3.6 Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.19 per million input tokens and $1.13 per million output tokens; Qwen2.5 32B Instruct lists at $0.70 and $2.80.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.6 Flash does, with 1M tokens against 131K.
How many benchmarks do Qwen2.5 32B Instruct and Qwen3.6 Flash share?
4 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen2.5 32B Instruct has 7 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Flash has 13.