Model comparison

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B vs Qwen2.5-Max

Qwen2.5-Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.7 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 20 shared benchmarks.

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B Alibaba (Qwen)

33.4

Rank #245 Confirmed

Qwen2.5-Max Alibaba (Qwen)

40.7

Rank #146 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 20 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen2.5-Coder-32B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen2.5-Max in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in coding, where Qwen2.5-Max leads 41.8 to 22.6.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is LiveBench Language: 23.3% for Qwen2.5-Coder-32B and 56.3% for Qwen2.5-Max.
  • Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B and Qwen2.5-Max specifications
Qwen2.5-Coder-32BQwen2.5-Max
ProviderAlibaba (Qwen)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index33.440.7
Released2024-09-182025-01-25
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window33K—
Max output29K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.66—
Output $ / M tokens$1—
Results tracked3127

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Qwen2.5-Max leads

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 22.6 (#333), Qwen2.5-Max: 41.8 (#117)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-Coder-32BQwen2.5-Max
LiveBench Coding56.9%64.4%
LMArena Coding12761359
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)9%—
Aider Polyglot16.4%—
BigCodeBench Instruct49%—
BigCodeBench Complete58%—
HumanEval+87.2%—
MBPP+77%—

Reasoning Qwen2.5-Max leads

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 21.2 (#225), Qwen2.5-Max: 25.6 (#147)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-Coder-32BQwen2.5-Max
LiveBench Reasoning42.1%51.4%
LMArena Hard Prompts12511360
LiveBench Data Analysis49.9%67.9%
Epoch Capabilities Index119.49132.53
LiveBench46.2%62.3%
HellaSwag83%—
WinoGrande80.8%—

Math Qwen2.5-Max leads

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.3 (#204), Qwen2.5-Max: 36.9 (#162)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-Coder-32BQwen2.5-Max
LiveBench Math46.6%58.4%
LMArena Math12511369
GSM8K93%—

Knowledge Qwen2.5-Max leads

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.4 (#203), Qwen2.5-Max: 35.3 (#186)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-Coder-32BQwen2.5-Max
LMArena Expert12211337
Confabulations—21.8%
ARC (AI2) Challenge70.5%—
MMLU79.1%—

Multilingual Qwen2.5-Max leads

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 37.8 (#235), Qwen2.5-Max: 48.1 (#146)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-Coder-32BQwen2.5-Max
LMArena Non-English12051352
LMArena Chinese12221382
LMArena Russian12281353
LMArena French—1396
LMArena German—1350
LMArena Japanese—1300
LMArena Korean—1304
LMArena Spanish—1377

Instruction Following Qwen2.5-Max leads

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 61.4 (#245), Qwen2.5-Max: 71.3 (#152)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-Coder-32BQwen2.5-Max
LiveBench Instruction Following58.7%75.3%
LMArena Instruction Following12231335

Long Context Qwen2.5-Max leads

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 38.0 (#208), Qwen2.5-Max: 41.4 (#142)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-Coder-32BQwen2.5-Max
LMArena Longer Query12511358

Writing & Preference Qwen2.5-Max leads

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 41.6 (#240), Qwen2.5-Max: 55.4 (#146)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-Coder-32BQwen2.5-Max
LMArena Text12301367
LMArena Creative Writing11741339
LMArena Multi-Turn12221364
LiveBench Language23.3%56.3%
Short-Story Creative Writing—72.9%

Frequently asked questions

Is Qwen2.5-Coder-32B better than Qwen2.5-Max?

Qwen2.5-Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.7 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index.

Is Qwen2.5-Coder-32B or Qwen2.5-Max better for coding?

Qwen2.5-Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.8 versus 22.6 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Qwen2.5-Coder-32B and Qwen2.5-Max share?

20 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has 31 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Max has 27.

Related comparisons

Go deeper