Model comparison
Qwen2.5-Coder-32B vs Qwen3-Coder 480B-A35B Instruct
Qwen3-Coder 480B-A35B Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.1 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5-Coder-32B costs 4.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3-Coder 480B-A35B Instruct's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen2.5-Coder-32B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3-Coder 480B-A35B Instruct in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen3-Coder 480B-A35B Instruct leads 55.3 to 41.6.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is SWE-bench Verified (bash only): 9% for Qwen2.5-Coder-32B and 55.4% for Qwen3-Coder 480B-A35B Instruct.
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B is cheaper at $0.66 / $1 per million input/output tokens, against $1.50 / $7.50 for Qwen3-Coder 480B-A35B Instruct.
- Qwen3-Coder 480B-A35B Instruct accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 33K.
Side by side
| Qwen2.5-Coder-32B | Qwen3-Coder 480B-A35B Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 33.4 | 38.1 |
| Released | 2024-09-18 | 2025-04 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 33K | 262K |
| Max output | 29K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.66 | $1.50 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $1 | $7.50 |
| Results tracked | 31 | 25 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3-Coder 480B-A35B Instruct leads
Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 22.6 (#333), Qwen3-Coder 480B-A35B Instruct: 35.5 (#223)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B | Qwen3-Coder 480B-A35B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 9% | 55.4% |
| LMArena Coding | 1276 | 1412 |
| Aider Polyglot | 16.4% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1275 |
| GSO | — | 4.9% |
| WeirdML | — | 41.2% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 49% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 56.9% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 58% | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 461.45 |
| AlgoTune | — | 1.44 |
| HumanEval+ | 87.2% | — |
| MBPP+ | 77% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: —, Qwen3-Coder 480B-A35B Instruct: 23.9 (#123)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B | Qwen3-Coder 480B-A35B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | — | 27.2% |
Reasoning Qwen3-Coder 480B-A35B Instruct leads
Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 21.2 (#225), Qwen3-Coder 480B-A35B Instruct: 25.5 (#149)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B | Qwen3-Coder 480B-A35B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1251 | 1372 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 49.5% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 42.1% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 49.9% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 119.49 | — |
| HellaSwag | 83% | — |
| LiveBench | 46.2% | — |
| WinoGrande | 80.8% | — |
Math Qwen3-Coder 480B-A35B Instruct leads
Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.3 (#204), Qwen3-Coder 480B-A35B Instruct: 37.6 (#150)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B | Qwen3-Coder 480B-A35B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1251 | 1365 |
| LiveBench Math | 46.6% | — |
| GSM8K | 93% | — |
Knowledge Qwen3-Coder 480B-A35B Instruct leads
Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.4 (#203), Qwen3-Coder 480B-A35B Instruct: 37.0 (#162)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B | Qwen3-Coder 480B-A35B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1221 | 1338 |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 70.5% | — |
| MMLU | 79.1% | — |
Multilingual Qwen3-Coder 480B-A35B Instruct leads
Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 37.8 (#235), Qwen3-Coder 480B-A35B Instruct: 47.7 (#148)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B | Qwen3-Coder 480B-A35B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1205 | 1346 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1222 | 1357 |
| LMArena Russian | 1228 | 1366 |
| LMArena French | — | 1398 |
| LMArena German | — | 1325 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1310 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1305 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1360 |
Instruction Following Qwen3-Coder 480B-A35B Instruct leads
Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 61.4 (#245), Qwen3-Coder 480B-A35B Instruct: 71.6 (#147)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B | Qwen3-Coder 480B-A35B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1223 | 1355 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 58.7% | — |
Long Context Qwen3-Coder 480B-A35B Instruct leads
Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 38.0 (#208), Qwen3-Coder 480B-A35B Instruct: 42.0 (#131)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B | Qwen3-Coder 480B-A35B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1251 | 1378 |
Writing & Preference Qwen3-Coder 480B-A35B Instruct leads
Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 41.6 (#240), Qwen3-Coder 480B-A35B Instruct: 55.3 (#147)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B | Qwen3-Coder 480B-A35B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1230 | 1357 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1174 | 1333 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1222 | 1365 |
| LiveBench Language | 23.3% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Qwen2.5-Coder-32B better than Qwen3-Coder 480B-A35B Instruct?
Qwen3-Coder 480B-A35B Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.1 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5-Coder-32B costs 4.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3-Coder 480B-A35B Instruct's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Qwen2.5-Coder-32B or Qwen3-Coder 480B-A35B Instruct?
Qwen2.5-Coder-32B is cheaper. It lists at $0.66 per million input tokens and $1 per million output tokens; Qwen3-Coder 480B-A35B Instruct lists at $1.50 and $7.50.
Is Qwen2.5-Coder-32B or Qwen3-Coder 480B-A35B Instruct better for coding?
Qwen3-Coder 480B-A35B Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 35.5 versus 22.6 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3-Coder 480B-A35B Instruct does, with 262K tokens against 33K.
How many benchmarks do Qwen2.5-Coder-32B and Qwen3-Coder 480B-A35B Instruct share?
13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has 31 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3-Coder 480B-A35B Instruct has 25.