Model comparison

Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct vs Qwen3 32B

Qwen3 32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.2 to 29.9 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.

Qwen3 32B Alibaba (Qwen)

39.2

Rank #172 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3 32B in 1 category; one gap is clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in agentic & tool use, where Qwen3 32B leads 32.6 to 18.6.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is Kagi LLM Benchmark: 36% for Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct and 54.9% for Qwen3 32B.
  • Qwen3 32B is cheaper at $0.70 / $2.80 per million input/output tokens, against $2.80 / $8.40 for Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct.

Side by side

Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct and Qwen3 32B specifications
Qwen2.5-VL 72B InstructQwen3 32B
ProviderAlibaba (Qwen)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index29.939.2
Released2024-092025-04
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window131K131K
Max output8K16K
Input $ / M tokens$2.80$0.70
Output $ / M tokens$8.40$2.80
Results tracked626

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: —, Qwen3 32B: 37.7 (#190)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-VL 72B InstructQwen3 32B
Aider Polyglot—40%
SciCode—35.4%
LMArena Coding—1358

Agentic & Tool Use Qwen3 32B leads

Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: 18.6 (#144), Qwen3 32B: 32.6 (#62)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-VL 72B InstructQwen3 32B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—48.7%
OSWorld5%—

Reasoning Too close to call

Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: 20.7 (#233), Qwen3 32B: 20.2 (#241)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-VL 72B InstructQwen3 32B
Kagi LLM Benchmark36%54.9%
CritPt—0.3%
Chess Puzzles—5%
LMArena Hard Prompts—1334
DTBench—67.5%
LMCA—17.3%
Epoch Capabilities Index—138.51

Math Not comparable

Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: —, Qwen3 32B: 39.7 (#99)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-VL 72B InstructQwen3 32B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—66.9%
LMArena Math—1399

Knowledge Not comparable

Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: —, Qwen3 32B: 40.0 (#125)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-VL 72B InstructQwen3 32B
GPQA Diamond—65.7%
Vectara Hallucination Rate—5.9%
LMArena Expert—1362

Multimodal Not comparable

Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: 33.5 (#97), Qwen3 32B: —

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-VL 72B InstructQwen3 32B
LMArena Vision1107—
Video-MME73.5%—
GeoBench62%—
SpatialViz-Bench33.3%—

Multilingual Not comparable

Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: —, Qwen3 32B: 45.6 (#167)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-VL 72B InstructQwen3 32B
LMArena Non-English—1317
LMArena Chinese—1357
LMArena German—1341
LMArena Russian—1311

Instruction Following Not comparable

Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: —, Qwen3 32B: 68.9 (#179)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-VL 72B InstructQwen3 32B
LMArena Instruction Following—1305

Long Context Not comparable

Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: —, Qwen3 32B: 43.8 (#87)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-VL 72B InstructQwen3 32B
Fiction.LiveBench—74.2%
LMArena Longer Query—1327

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: —, Qwen3 32B: 52.9 (#163)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-VL 72B InstructQwen3 32B
LMArena Text—1340
LMArena Creative Writing—1297
LMArena Multi-Turn—1331

Frequently asked questions

Is Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct better than Qwen3 32B?

Qwen3 32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.2 to 29.9 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct or Qwen3 32B?

Qwen3 32B is cheaper. It lists at $0.70 per million input tokens and $2.80 per million output tokens; Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct lists at $2.80 and $8.40.

Which has the bigger context window?

Both accept 131K tokens.

How many benchmarks do Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct and Qwen3 32B share?

1 benchmark has published results for both models. Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct has 6 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 32B has 26.

Related comparisons

Go deeper