Model comparison

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B vs Qwen3-4B

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 32.9 to 31.5 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.

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

32.9

Rank #239 Confirmed

Qwen3-4B Alibaba (Qwen)

31.5

Rank #261 Confirmed

Side by side

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B and Qwen3-4B specifications
Qwen2.5-Coder-32BQwen3-4B
ProviderAlibaba (Qwen)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index32.931.5
Released2024-09-182025-04-29
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window33K—
Max output29K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.66—
Output $ / M tokens$1—
Results tracked316

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 22.4 (#328), Qwen3-4B: —

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-Coder-32BQwen3-4B
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)9%—
Aider Polyglot16.4%—
BigCodeBench Instruct49%—
LiveBench Coding56.9%—
LMArena Coding1276—
BigCodeBench Complete58%—
HumanEval+87.2%—
MBPP+77%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: —, Qwen3-4B: 27.3 (#94)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-Coder-32BQwen3-4B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—35.7%

Reasoning Qwen2.5-Coder-32B leads

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 20.4 (#220), Qwen3-4B: 18.5 (#264)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-Coder-32BQwen3-4B
Chess Puzzles—4%
LiveBench Reasoning42.1%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1251—
LiveBench Data Analysis49.9%—
Epoch Capabilities Index119.41—
HellaSwag83%—
LiveBench46.2%—
WinoGrande80.8%—

Math Qwen2.5-Coder-32B leads

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 30.8 (#203), Qwen3-4B: 28.5 (#228)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-Coder-32BQwen3-4B
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions—38.5%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—52.2%
LiveBench Math46.6%—
LMArena Math1251—
GSM8K93%—

Knowledge Too close to call

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 32.9 (#200), Qwen3-4B: 33.0 (#198)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-Coder-32BQwen3-4B
GPQA Diamond—52.3%
Vectara Hallucination Rate—5.7%
LMArena Expert1221—
ARC (AI2) Challenge70.5%—
MMLU79.1%—

Multilingual Not comparable

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 38.0 (#230), Qwen3-4B: —

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-Coder-32BQwen3-4B
LMArena Non-English1205—
LMArena Chinese1222—
LMArena Russian1228—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 61.6 (#240), Qwen3-4B: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-Coder-32BQwen3-4B
LiveBench Instruction Following58.7%—
LMArena Instruction Following1223—

Long Context Not comparable

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 37.9 (#204), Qwen3-4B: —

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-Coder-32BQwen3-4B
LMArena Longer Query1251—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 41.8 (#235), Qwen3-4B: —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-Coder-32BQwen3-4B
LMArena Text1230—
LMArena Creative Writing1174—
LMArena Multi-Turn1222—
LiveBench Language23.3%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Qwen2.5-Coder-32B better than Qwen3-4B?

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 32.9 to 31.5 on the Noometry Index.

How many benchmarks do Qwen2.5-Coder-32B and Qwen3-4B share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has 31 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3-4B has 6.

Related comparisons

Go deeper