Noometry

Model comparison

Qwen3-1.7B vs QwQ-32B

QwQ-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.8 to 26.6 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 3 shared benchmarks.

Qwen3-1.7B Alibaba (Qwen)

26.6

Rank #336 Reported

QwQ-32B Alibaba (Qwen)

39.8

Rank #159 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen3-1.7B scores higher in 0 categories and QwQ-32B in 3 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where QwQ-32B leads 38.0 to 16.3.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 8.1% for Qwen3-1.7B and 59.2% for QwQ-32B.

Side by side

Qwen3-1.7BQwQ-32B
ProviderAlibaba (Qwen)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index26.639.8
Released2025-04-292024-11-28
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window——
Max output——
Input $ / M tokens——
Output $ / M tokens——
Results tracked436

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

Qwen3-1.7B: —, QwQ-32B: 35.4 (#226)

BenchmarkQwen3-1.7BQwQ-32B
Aider Polyglot—20.9%
BigCodeBench Instruct—44.6%
LiveBench Coding—72.2%
LMArena Coding—1333
BigCodeBench Complete—54.4%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Qwen3-1.7B: 24.7 (#115), QwQ-32B: —

BenchmarkQwen3-1.7BQwQ-32B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard28.4%—

Reasoning QwQ-32B leads

Qwen3-1.7B: 19.2 (#267), QwQ-32B: 23.7 (#174)

BenchmarkQwen3-1.7BQwQ-32B
Chess Puzzles0%5%
LiveBench Reasoning—83.5%
LMArena Hard Prompts—1325
LiveBench Data Analysis—65%
Epoch Capabilities Index—137.6
ForecastBench—58.3
LiveBench—72%

Math QwQ-32B leads

Qwen3-1.7B: 16.3 (#294), QwQ-32B: 38.0 (#143)

BenchmarkQwen3-1.7BQwQ-32B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-20258.1%59.2%
LiveBench Math—77.8%
LMArena Math—1359

Knowledge QwQ-32B leads

Qwen3-1.7B: 19.6 (#278), QwQ-32B: 37.2 (#158)

BenchmarkQwen3-1.7BQwQ-32B
GPQA Diamond38%65.3%
Confabulations—15.6%
LMArena Expert—1324

Multilingual Not comparable

Qwen3-1.7B: —, QwQ-32B: 44.8 (#176)

BenchmarkQwen3-1.7BQwQ-32B
LMArena Non-English—1305
LMArena Chinese—1378
LMArena French—1336
LMArena German—1313
LMArena Japanese—1262
LMArena Korean—1279
LMArena Russian—1297
LMArena Spanish—1354

Instruction Following Not comparable

Qwen3-1.7B: —, QwQ-32B: 72.6 (#137)

BenchmarkQwen3-1.7BQwQ-32B
LiveBench Instruction Following—81.8%
LMArena Instruction Following—1297

Long Context Not comparable

Qwen3-1.7B: —, QwQ-32B: 49.0 (#11)

BenchmarkQwen3-1.7BQwQ-32B
Fiction.LiveBench—83.3%
LMArena Longer Query—1308

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Qwen3-1.7B: —, QwQ-32B: 50.6 (#180)

BenchmarkQwen3-1.7BQwQ-32B
LMArena Text—1329
LMArena Creative Writing—1288
Short-Story Creative Writing—80.2%
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—1257
LMArena Multi-Turn—1314
LiveBench Language—51.4%

Frequently asked questions

Is Qwen3-1.7B better than QwQ-32B?

QwQ-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.8 to 26.6 on the Noometry Index.

How many benchmarks do Qwen3-1.7B and QwQ-32B share?

3 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen3-1.7B has 4 scored results on Noometry and QwQ-32B has 36.

Related comparisons

Go deeper