Model comparison

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B vs Step 3

Step 3 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.5 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.

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

33.4

Rank #245 Confirmed

Step 3 StepFun

40.5

Rank #149 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen2.5-Coder-32B scores higher in 0 categories and Step 3 in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in coding, where Step 3 leads 40.1 to 22.6.

Side by side

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B and Step 3 specifications
Qwen2.5-Coder-32BStep 3
ProviderAlibaba (Qwen)StepFun
Noometry Index33.440.5
Released2024-09-18—
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window33K—
Max output29K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.66—
Output $ / M tokens$1—
Results tracked3117

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

Category by category

Coding Step 3 leads

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 22.6 (#333), Step 3: 40.1 (#147)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-Coder-32BStep 3
LMArena Coding12761367
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)9%—
Aider Polyglot16.4%—
BigCodeBench Instruct49%—
LiveBench Coding56.9%—
BigCodeBench Complete58%—
HumanEval+87.2%—
MBPP+77%—

Reasoning Step 3 leads

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 21.2 (#225), Step 3: 28.4 (#105)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-Coder-32BStep 3
LMArena Hard Prompts12511355
Kagi LLM Benchmark—62.3%
LiveBench Reasoning42.1%—
LiveBench Data Analysis49.9%—
Epoch Capabilities Index119.49—
HellaSwag83%—
LiveBench46.2%—
WinoGrande80.8%—

Math Step 3 leads

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.3 (#204), Step 3: 37.6 (#148)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-Coder-32BStep 3
LMArena Math12511366
LiveBench Math46.6%—
GSM8K93%—

Knowledge Step 3 leads

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.4 (#203), Step 3: 36.8 (#164)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-Coder-32BStep 3
LMArena Expert12211333
ARC (AI2) Challenge70.5%—
MMLU79.1%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: —, Step 3: 35.5 (#86)

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-Coder-32BStep 3
LMArena Vision—1177

Multilingual Step 3 leads

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 37.8 (#235), Step 3: 46.3 (#159)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-Coder-32BStep 3
LMArena Non-English12051327
LMArena Chinese12221397
LMArena Russian12281331
LMArena German—1371
LMArena Korean—1269
LMArena Spanish—1371

Instruction Following Step 3 leads

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 61.4 (#245), Step 3: 70.4 (#164)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-Coder-32BStep 3
LMArena Instruction Following12231332
LiveBench Instruction Following58.7%—

Long Context Step 3 leads

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 38.0 (#208), Step 3: 40.3 (#157)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-Coder-32BStep 3
LMArena Longer Query12511326

Writing & Preference Step 3 leads

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 41.6 (#240), Step 3: 54.3 (#151)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-Coder-32BStep 3
LMArena Text12301350
LMArena Creative Writing11741321
LMArena Multi-Turn12221341
LiveBench Language23.3%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Qwen2.5-Coder-32B better than Step 3?

Step 3 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.5 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index.

Is Qwen2.5-Coder-32B or Step 3 better for coding?

Step 3 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.1 versus 22.6 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Qwen2.5-Coder-32B and Step 3 share?

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has 31 scored results on Noometry and Step 3 has 17.

Related comparisons

Go deeper