Noometry

Model comparison

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B vs Qwen3.6 Flash

Qwen3.6 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.

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

33.4

Rank #245 Confirmed

Qwen3.6 Flash Alibaba (Qwen)

38.8

Rank #182 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. Qwen2.5-Coder-32B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.6 Flash in 3 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.6 Flash leads 42.1 to 33.4.
  • Qwen3.6 Flash is cheaper at $0.19 / $1.13 per million input/output tokens, against $0.66 / $1 for Qwen2.5-Coder-32B.
  • Qwen3.6 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-32BQwen3.6 Flash
ProviderAlibaba (Qwen)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index33.438.8
Released2024-09-182026-04-27
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window33K1M
Max output29K66K
Input $ / M tokens$0.66$0.19
Output $ / M tokens$1$1.13
Results tracked3113

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 22.6 (#333), Qwen3.6 Flash: —

BenchmarkQwen2.5-Coder-32BQwen3.6 Flash
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)9%—
Aider Polyglot16.4%—
BigCodeBench Instruct49%—
LiveBench Coding56.9%—
LMArena Coding1276—
BigCodeBench Complete58%—
ALE-Bench—326.4
HumanEval+87.2%—
MBPP+77%—

Reasoning Qwen3.6 Flash leads

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 21.2 (#225), Qwen3.6 Flash: 29.0 (#96)

BenchmarkQwen2.5-Coder-32BQwen3.6 Flash
Epoch Capabilities Index119.49143.26
SimpleBench—35.2%
Chess Puzzles—20%
LiveBench Reasoning42.1%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1251—
Mystery Game Puzzles—18%
DTBench—77.1%
LiveBench Data Analysis49.9%—
LMCA—31%
HellaSwag83%—
LiveBench46.2%—
WinoGrande80.8%—

Math Qwen3.6 Flash leads

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.3 (#204), Qwen3.6 Flash: 39.0 (#117)

BenchmarkQwen2.5-Coder-32BQwen3.6 Flash
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—22.5%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—84.4%
LiveBench Math46.6%—
LMArena Math1251—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—10.3%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)—0%
GSM8K93%—

Knowledge Qwen3.6 Flash leads

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.4 (#203), Qwen3.6 Flash: 42.1 (#100)

BenchmarkQwen2.5-Coder-32BQwen3.6 Flash
GPQA Diamond—83.3%
SimpleQA Verified—15.9%
LMArena Expert1221—
ARC (AI2) Challenge70.5%—
MMLU79.1%—

Multilingual Not comparable

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 37.8 (#235), Qwen3.6 Flash: —

BenchmarkQwen2.5-Coder-32BQwen3.6 Flash
LMArena Non-English1205—
LMArena Chinese1222—
LMArena Russian1228—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 61.4 (#245), Qwen3.6 Flash: —

BenchmarkQwen2.5-Coder-32BQwen3.6 Flash
LiveBench Instruction Following58.7%—
LMArena Instruction Following1223—

Long Context Not comparable

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 38.0 (#208), Qwen3.6 Flash: —

BenchmarkQwen2.5-Coder-32BQwen3.6 Flash
LMArena Longer Query1251—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 41.6 (#240), Qwen3.6 Flash: —

BenchmarkQwen2.5-Coder-32BQwen3.6 Flash
LMArena Text1230—
LMArena Creative Writing1174—
LMArena Multi-Turn1222—
LiveBench Language23.3%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Qwen2.5-Coder-32B better than Qwen3.6 Flash?

Qwen3.6 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index.

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

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.6 Flash does, with 1M tokens against 33K.

How many benchmarks do Qwen2.5-Coder-32B and Qwen3.6 Flash share?

1 benchmark has published results for both models. Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has 31 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Flash has 13.

Related comparisons

Go deeper