Noometry

Model comparison

Qwen2.5-Max vs QwQ-32B

Qwen2.5-Max and QwQ-32B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (40.7 vs 39.8), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Last verified . 27 shared benchmarks.

Qwen2.5-Max Alibaba (Qwen)

40.7

Rank #146 Confirmed

QwQ-32B Alibaba (Qwen)

39.8

Rank #159 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 27 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen2.5-Max scores higher in 4 categories and QwQ-32B in 4 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in long context, where QwQ-32B leads 49.0 to 41.4.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is LiveBench Reasoning: 51.4% for Qwen2.5-Max and 83.5% for QwQ-32B.
  • QwQ-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Qwen2.5-MaxQwQ-32B
ProviderAlibaba (Qwen)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index40.739.8
Released2025-01-252024-11-28
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window——
Max output——
Input $ / M tokens——
Output $ / M tokens——
Results tracked2736

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen2.5-Max leads

Qwen2.5-Max: 41.8 (#117), QwQ-32B: 35.4 (#226)

BenchmarkQwen2.5-MaxQwQ-32B
LiveBench Coding64.4%72.2%
LMArena Coding13591333
Aider Polyglot—20.9%
BigCodeBench Instruct—44.6%
BigCodeBench Complete—54.4%

Reasoning Qwen2.5-Max leads

Qwen2.5-Max: 25.6 (#147), QwQ-32B: 23.7 (#174)

BenchmarkQwen2.5-MaxQwQ-32B
LiveBench Reasoning51.4%83.5%
LMArena Hard Prompts13601325
LiveBench Data Analysis67.9%65%
Epoch Capabilities Index132.53137.6
LiveBench62.3%72%
Chess Puzzles—5%
ForecastBench—58.3

Math QwQ-32B leads

Qwen2.5-Max: 36.9 (#162), QwQ-32B: 38.0 (#143)

BenchmarkQwen2.5-MaxQwQ-32B
LiveBench Math58.4%77.8%
LMArena Math13691359
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—59.2%

Knowledge QwQ-32B leads

Qwen2.5-Max: 35.3 (#186), QwQ-32B: 37.2 (#158)

BenchmarkQwen2.5-MaxQwQ-32B
Confabulations21.8%15.6%
LMArena Expert13371324
GPQA Diamond—65.3%

Multilingual Qwen2.5-Max leads

Qwen2.5-Max: 48.1 (#146), QwQ-32B: 44.8 (#176)

BenchmarkQwen2.5-MaxQwQ-32B
LMArena Non-English13521305
LMArena Chinese13821378
LMArena French13961336
LMArena German13501313
LMArena Japanese13001262
LMArena Korean13041279
LMArena Russian13531297
LMArena Spanish13771354

Instruction Following QwQ-32B leads

Qwen2.5-Max: 71.3 (#152), QwQ-32B: 72.6 (#137)

BenchmarkQwen2.5-MaxQwQ-32B
LiveBench Instruction Following75.3%81.8%
LMArena Instruction Following13351297

Long Context QwQ-32B leads

Qwen2.5-Max: 41.4 (#142), QwQ-32B: 49.0 (#11)

BenchmarkQwen2.5-MaxQwQ-32B
LMArena Longer Query13581308
Fiction.LiveBench—83.3%

Writing & Preference Qwen2.5-Max leads

Qwen2.5-Max: 55.4 (#146), QwQ-32B: 50.6 (#180)

BenchmarkQwen2.5-MaxQwQ-32B
LMArena Text13671329
LMArena Creative Writing13391288
Short-Story Creative Writing72.9%80.2%
LMArena Multi-Turn13641314
LiveBench Language56.3%51.4%
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—1257

Frequently asked questions

Is Qwen2.5-Max better than QwQ-32B?

Qwen2.5-Max and QwQ-32B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (40.7 vs 39.8), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Is Qwen2.5-Max or QwQ-32B better for coding?

Qwen2.5-Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.8 versus 35.4 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Qwen2.5-Max and QwQ-32B share?

27 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen2.5-Max has 27 scored results on Noometry and QwQ-32B has 36.

Related comparisons

Go deeper