Model comparison

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

Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.5 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.

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

33.4

Rank #245 Confirmed

Qwen3.5-Flash Alibaba (Qwen)

42.5

Rank #112 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen2.5-Coder-32B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.5-Flash in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen3.5-Flash leads 57.9 to 41.6.
  • Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $0.66 / $1 for Qwen2.5-Coder-32B.
  • Qwen3.5-Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 33K.
  • Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B and Qwen3.5-Flash specifications
Qwen2.5-Coder-32BQwen3.5-Flash
ProviderAlibaba (Qwen)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index33.442.5
Released2024-09-182026-02-23
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window33K1M
Max output29K66K
Input $ / M tokens$0.66$0.10
Output $ / M tokens$1$0.40
Results tracked3132

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 22.6 (#333), Qwen3.5-Flash: 34.2 (#242)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-Coder-32BQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Coding12761412
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)9%—
Aider Polyglot16.4%—
LMArena WebDev—1244
BigCodeBench Instruct49%—
LiveBench Coding56.9%—
BigCodeBench Complete58%—
ALE-Bench—221.8
HumanEval+87.2%—
MBPP+77%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-Coder-32BQwen3.5-Flash
Vending-Bench 2—462.69

Reasoning Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 21.2 (#225), Qwen3.5-Flash: 33.7 (#72)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-Coder-32BQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Hard Prompts12511403
Epoch Capabilities Index119.49143.98
Chess Puzzles—21%
LiveBench Reasoning42.1%—
Mystery Game Puzzles—20%
DTBench—82.9%
LiveBench Data Analysis49.9%—
LMCA—29.1%
HellaSwag83%—
LiveBench46.2%—
WinoGrande80.8%—

Math Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.3 (#204), Qwen3.5-Flash: 37.4 (#158)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-Coder-32BQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Math12511407
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—18.2%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—84.4%
LiveBench Math46.6%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—6.2%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)—0%
GSM8K93%—

Knowledge Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.4 (#203), Qwen3.5-Flash: 43.2 (#93)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-Coder-32BQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Expert12211407
GPQA Diamond—82.3%
SimpleQA Verified—20.3%
Vectara Hallucination Rate—10.5%
ARC (AI2) Challenge70.5%—
MMLU79.1%—

Multilingual Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 37.8 (#235), Qwen3.5-Flash: 50.5 (#121)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-Coder-32BQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Non-English12051385
LMArena Chinese12221446
LMArena Russian12281379
LMArena French—1412
LMArena German—1390
LMArena Japanese—1368
LMArena Korean—1344
LMArena Spanish—1400

Instruction Following Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 61.4 (#245), Qwen3.5-Flash: 72.6 (#139)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-Coder-32BQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Instruction Following12231374
LiveBench Instruction Following58.7%—

Long Context Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 38.0 (#208), Qwen3.5-Flash: 42.4 (#124)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-Coder-32BQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Longer Query12511392

Writing & Preference Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 41.6 (#240), Qwen3.5-Flash: 57.9 (#122)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-Coder-32BQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text12301397
LMArena Creative Writing11741343
LMArena Multi-Turn12221393
LiveBench Language23.3%—

Frequently asked questions

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

Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.5 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Qwen2.5-Coder-32B 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-Coder-32B lists at $0.66 and $1.

Is Qwen2.5-Coder-32B or Qwen3.5-Flash better for coding?

Qwen3.5-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 34.2 versus 22.6 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.5-Flash does, with 1M tokens against 33K.

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

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

Related comparisons

Go deeper