Noometry

Model comparison

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B vs Qwen3.7 Flash

Qwen3.7 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.9 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.

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

33.4

Rank #245 Confirmed

Qwen3.7 Flash Alibaba (Qwen)

39.9

Rank #156 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. Qwen2.5-Coder-32B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.7 Flash in 3 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.7 Flash leads 48.9 to 33.4.
  • Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper at $0.03 / $0.13 per million input/output tokens, against $0.66 / $1 for Qwen2.5-Coder-32B.
  • Qwen3.7 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-32BQwen3.7 Flash
ProviderAlibaba (Qwen)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index33.439.9
Released2024-09-182026-07-15
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window33K1M
Max output29K131K
Input $ / M tokens$0.66$0.03
Output $ / M tokens$1$0.13
Results tracked317

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), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkQwen2.5-Coder-32BQwen3.7 Flash
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)9%—
Aider Polyglot16.4%—
BigCodeBench Instruct49%—
LiveBench Coding56.9%—
LMArena Coding1276—
BigCodeBench Complete58%—
HumanEval+87.2%—
MBPP+77%—

Reasoning Qwen3.7 Flash leads

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 21.2 (#225), Qwen3.7 Flash: 28.2 (#108)

BenchmarkQwen2.5-Coder-32BQwen3.7 Flash
Epoch Capabilities Index119.49144.64
NYT Connections (extended)—43.8%
Chess Puzzles—23%
LiveBench Reasoning42.1%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1251—
Mystery Game Puzzles—15%
LiveBench Data Analysis49.9%—
HellaSwag83%—
LiveBench46.2%—
WinoGrande80.8%—

Math Qwen3.7 Flash leads

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.3 (#204), Qwen3.7 Flash: 38.3 (#140)

BenchmarkQwen2.5-Coder-32BQwen3.7 Flash
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—19.3%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—86.7%
LiveBench Math46.6%—
LMArena Math1251—
GSM8K93%—

Knowledge Qwen3.7 Flash leads

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.4 (#203), Qwen3.7 Flash: 48.9 (#75)

BenchmarkQwen2.5-Coder-32BQwen3.7 Flash
GPQA Diamond—82.3%
LMArena Expert1221—
ARC (AI2) Challenge70.5%—
MMLU79.1%—

Multilingual Not comparable

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 37.8 (#235), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkQwen2.5-Coder-32BQwen3.7 Flash
LMArena Non-English1205—
LMArena Chinese1222—
LMArena Russian1228—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 61.4 (#245), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

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

Long Context Not comparable

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 38.0 (#208), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkQwen2.5-Coder-32BQwen3.7 Flash
LMArena Longer Query1251—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 41.6 (#240), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkQwen2.5-Coder-32BQwen3.7 Flash
LMArena Text1230—
LMArena Creative Writing1174—
LMArena Multi-Turn1222—
LiveBench Language23.3%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Qwen2.5-Coder-32B better than Qwen3.7 Flash?

Qwen3.7 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.9 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Qwen2.5-Coder-32B or Qwen3.7 Flash?

Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.03 per million input tokens and $0.13 per million output tokens; Qwen2.5-Coder-32B lists at $0.66 and $1.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.7 Flash does, with 1M tokens against 33K.

How many benchmarks do Qwen2.5-Coder-32B and Qwen3.7 Flash share?

1 benchmark has published results for both models. Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has 31 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Flash has 7.

Related comparisons

Go deeper