Model comparison
Qwen3 32B vs Qwen3.7 Plus
Qwen3.7 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.3 to 39.2 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 21 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 21 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen3 32B scores higher in 2 categories and Qwen3.7 Plus in 7 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen3.7 Plus leads 39.3 to 20.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 66.9% for Qwen3 32B and 93.3% for Qwen3.7 Plus.
- Qwen3.7 Plus is cheaper at $0.40 / $1.60 per million input/output tokens, against $0.70 / $2.80 for Qwen3 32B.
- Qwen3.7 Plus accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 131K.
- Qwen3 32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Qwen3 32B | Qwen3.7 Plus | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 39.2 | 45.3 |
| Released | 2025-04 | 2026-06-02 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 131K | 1M |
| Max output | 16K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.70 | $0.40 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2.80 | $1.60 |
| Results tracked | 26 | 32 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3 32B leads
Qwen3 32B: 37.7 (#190), Qwen3.7 Plus: 36.6 (#206)
| Benchmark | Qwen3 32B | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 35.4% | 45.5% |
| LMArena Coding | 1358 | 1473 |
| FrontierCode | — | 10.2% |
| Aider Polyglot | 40% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Qwen3 32B leads
Qwen3 32B: 32.6 (#62), Qwen3.7 Plus: 21.4 (#138)
| Benchmark | Qwen3 32B | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 48.7% | — |
| OSWorld 2.0 | — | 2.8% |
Reasoning Qwen3.7 Plus leads
Qwen3 32B: 20.2 (#241), Qwen3.7 Plus: 39.3 (#59)
| Benchmark | Qwen3 32B | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 0.3% | 9.1% |
| Chess Puzzles | 5% | 24% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1334 | 1460 |
| DTBench | 67.5% | 84% |
| LMCA | 17.3% | 37.6% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 138.51 | 147.37 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 54.9% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 74.8% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 17% |
Math Qwen3.7 Plus leads
Qwen3 32B: 39.7 (#99), Qwen3.7 Plus: 50.5 (#56)
| Benchmark | Qwen3 32B | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 66.9% | 93.3% |
| LMArena Math | 1399 | 1466 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 34.4% |
Knowledge Qwen3.7 Plus leads
Qwen3 32B: 40.0 (#125), Qwen3.7 Plus: 54.9 (#51)
| Benchmark | Qwen3 32B | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 65.7% | 87.9% |
| LMArena Expert | 1362 | 1467 |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 5.9% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Qwen3 32B: —, Qwen3.7 Plus: 41.8 (#33)
| Benchmark | Qwen3 32B | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1279 |
| LMArena Document | — | 1444 |
Multilingual Qwen3.7 Plus leads
Qwen3 32B: 45.6 (#167), Qwen3.7 Plus: 54.8 (#38)
| Benchmark | Qwen3 32B | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1317 | 1445 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1357 | 1510 |
| LMArena German | 1341 | 1471 |
| LMArena Russian | 1311 | 1457 |
| LMArena French | — | 1473 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1413 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1415 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1457 |
Instruction Following Qwen3.7 Plus leads
Qwen3 32B: 68.9 (#179), Qwen3.7 Plus: 75.8 (#52)
| Benchmark | Qwen3 32B | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1305 | 1440 |
Long Context Too close to call
Qwen3 32B: 43.8 (#87), Qwen3.7 Plus: 44.5 (#65)
| Benchmark | Qwen3 32B | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1327 | 1455 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 74.2% | — |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.7 Plus leads
Qwen3 32B: 52.9 (#163), Qwen3.7 Plus: 64.3 (#56)
| Benchmark | Qwen3 32B | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1340 | 1455 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1297 | 1439 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1331 | 1460 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Qwen3 32B better than Qwen3.7 Plus?
Qwen3.7 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.3 to 39.2 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Qwen3 32B or Qwen3.7 Plus?
Qwen3.7 Plus is cheaper. It lists at $0.40 per million input tokens and $1.60 per million output tokens; Qwen3 32B lists at $0.70 and $2.80.
Is Qwen3 32B or Qwen3.7 Plus better for coding?
Qwen3 32B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.7 versus 36.6 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.7 Plus does, with 1M tokens against 131K.
How many benchmarks do Qwen3 32B and Qwen3.7 Plus share?
21 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen3 32B has 26 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Plus has 32.