Model comparison

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B vs Step 1o Turbo 202506

Step 1o Turbo 202506 is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.7 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.

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

33.4

Rank #245 Confirmed

Step 1o Turbo 202506 StepFun

39.7

Rank #160 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen2.5-Coder-32B scores higher in 0 categories and Step 1o Turbo 202506 in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in coding, where Step 1o Turbo 202506 leads 39.2 to 22.6.
  • Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B and Step 1o Turbo 202506 specifications
Qwen2.5-Coder-32BStep 1o Turbo 202506
ProviderAlibaba (Qwen)StepFun
Noometry Index33.439.7
Released2024-09-18—
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window33K—
Max output29K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.66—
Output $ / M tokens$1—
Results tracked3114

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

Category by category

Coding Step 1o Turbo 202506 leads

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 22.6 (#333), Step 1o Turbo 202506: 39.2 (#160)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-Coder-32BStep 1o Turbo 202506
LMArena Coding12761339
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)9%—
Aider Polyglot16.4%—
BigCodeBench Instruct49%—
LiveBench Coding56.9%—
BigCodeBench Complete58%—
HumanEval+87.2%—
MBPP+77%—

Reasoning Step 1o Turbo 202506 leads

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 21.2 (#225), Step 1o Turbo 202506: 26.8 (#129)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-Coder-32BStep 1o Turbo 202506
LMArena Hard Prompts12511335
LiveBench Reasoning42.1%—
LiveBench Data Analysis49.9%—
Epoch Capabilities Index119.49—
HellaSwag83%—
LiveBench46.2%—
WinoGrande80.8%—

Math Step 1o Turbo 202506 leads

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.3 (#204), Step 1o Turbo 202506: 36.6 (#164)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-Coder-32BStep 1o Turbo 202506
LMArena Math12511318
LiveBench Math46.6%—
GSM8K93%—

Knowledge Step 1o Turbo 202506 leads

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.4 (#203), Step 1o Turbo 202506: 36.1 (#176)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-Coder-32BStep 1o Turbo 202506
LMArena Expert12211308
ARC (AI2) Challenge70.5%—
MMLU79.1%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: —, Step 1o Turbo 202506: 36.1 (#80)

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-Coder-32BStep 1o Turbo 202506
LMArena Vision—1186

Multilingual Step 1o Turbo 202506 leads

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 37.8 (#235), Step 1o Turbo 202506: 45.3 (#173)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-Coder-32BStep 1o Turbo 202506
LMArena Non-English12051313
LMArena Chinese12221380
LMArena Russian12281327
LMArena German—1314

Instruction Following Step 1o Turbo 202506 leads

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 61.4 (#245), Step 1o Turbo 202506: 69.2 (#176)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-Coder-32BStep 1o Turbo 202506
LMArena Instruction Following12231310
LiveBench Instruction Following58.7%—

Long Context Step 1o Turbo 202506 leads

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 38.0 (#208), Step 1o Turbo 202506: 41.0 (#146)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-Coder-32BStep 1o Turbo 202506
LMArena Longer Query12511348

Writing & Preference Step 1o Turbo 202506 leads

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 41.6 (#240), Step 1o Turbo 202506: 53.1 (#160)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-Coder-32BStep 1o Turbo 202506
LMArena Text12301336
LMArena Creative Writing11741307
LMArena Multi-Turn12221340
LiveBench Language23.3%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Qwen2.5-Coder-32B better than Step 1o Turbo 202506?

Step 1o Turbo 202506 is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.7 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index.

Is Qwen2.5-Coder-32B or Step 1o Turbo 202506 better for coding?

Step 1o Turbo 202506 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.2 versus 22.6 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Qwen2.5-Coder-32B and Step 1o Turbo 202506 share?

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has 31 scored results on Noometry and Step 1o Turbo 202506 has 14.

Related comparisons

Go deeper