Noometry

Model comparison

Qwen3 32B vs QwQ-32B

Qwen3 32B and QwQ-32B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (39.2 vs 39.8), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Last verified . 19 shared benchmarks.

Qwen3 32B Alibaba (Qwen)

39.2

Rank #172 Confirmed

QwQ-32B Alibaba (Qwen)

39.8

Rank #159 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 19 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen3 32B scores higher in 5 categories and QwQ-32B in 3 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in long context, where QwQ-32B leads 49.0 to 43.8.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is Aider Polyglot: 40% for Qwen3 32B and 20.9% for QwQ-32B.

Side by side

Qwen3 32BQwQ-32B
ProviderAlibaba (Qwen)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index39.239.8
Released2025-042024-11-28
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window131K—
Max output16K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.70—
Output $ / M tokens$2.80—
Results tracked2636

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3 32B leads

Qwen3 32B: 37.7 (#190), QwQ-32B: 35.4 (#226)

BenchmarkQwen3 32BQwQ-32B
Aider Polyglot40%20.9%
LMArena Coding13581333
SciCode35.4%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—44.6%
LiveBench Coding—72.2%
BigCodeBench Complete—54.4%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Qwen3 32B: 32.6 (#62), QwQ-32B: —

BenchmarkQwen3 32BQwQ-32B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard48.7%—

Reasoning QwQ-32B leads

Qwen3 32B: 20.2 (#241), QwQ-32B: 23.7 (#174)

BenchmarkQwen3 32BQwQ-32B
Chess Puzzles5%5%
LMArena Hard Prompts13341325
Epoch Capabilities Index138.51137.6
Kagi LLM Benchmark54.9%—
CritPt0.3%—
LiveBench Reasoning—83.5%
DTBench67.5%—
LiveBench Data Analysis—65%
LMCA17.3%—
ForecastBench—58.3
LiveBench—72%

Math Qwen3 32B leads

Qwen3 32B: 39.7 (#99), QwQ-32B: 38.0 (#143)

BenchmarkQwen3 32BQwQ-32B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202566.9%59.2%
LMArena Math13991359
LiveBench Math—77.8%

Knowledge Qwen3 32B leads

Qwen3 32B: 40.0 (#125), QwQ-32B: 37.2 (#158)

BenchmarkQwen3 32BQwQ-32B
GPQA Diamond65.7%65.3%
LMArena Expert13621324
Confabulations—15.6%
Vectara Hallucination Rate5.9%—

Multilingual Too close to call

Qwen3 32B: 45.6 (#167), QwQ-32B: 44.8 (#176)

BenchmarkQwen3 32BQwQ-32B
LMArena Non-English13171305
LMArena Chinese13571378
LMArena German13411313
LMArena Russian13111297
LMArena French—1336
LMArena Japanese—1262
LMArena Korean—1279
LMArena Spanish—1354

Instruction Following QwQ-32B leads

Qwen3 32B: 68.9 (#179), QwQ-32B: 72.6 (#137)

BenchmarkQwen3 32BQwQ-32B
LMArena Instruction Following13051297
LiveBench Instruction Following—81.8%

Long Context QwQ-32B leads

Qwen3 32B: 43.8 (#87), QwQ-32B: 49.0 (#11)

BenchmarkQwen3 32BQwQ-32B
Fiction.LiveBench74.2%83.3%
LMArena Longer Query13271308

Writing & Preference Qwen3 32B leads

Qwen3 32B: 52.9 (#163), QwQ-32B: 50.6 (#180)

BenchmarkQwen3 32BQwQ-32B
LMArena Text13401329
LMArena Creative Writing12971288
LMArena Multi-Turn13311314
Short-Story Creative Writing—80.2%
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—1257
LiveBench Language—51.4%

Frequently asked questions

Is Qwen3 32B better than QwQ-32B?

Qwen3 32B and QwQ-32B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (39.2 vs 39.8), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Is Qwen3 32B or QwQ-32B better for coding?

Qwen3 32B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.7 versus 35.4 in the Noometry coding category.

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

19 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen3 32B has 26 scored results on Noometry and QwQ-32B has 36.

Related comparisons

Go deeper