Model comparison
Qwen3 32B vs Solar Pro4
Solar Pro4 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.1 to 39.2 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)
UpstageSummary
- They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen3 32B scores higher in 3 categories and Solar Pro4 in 5 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Solar Pro4 leads 28.5 to 20.2.
- Solar Pro4 is cheaper at $0.30 / $1.20 per million input/output tokens, against $0.70 / $2.80 for Qwen3 32B.
- Solar Pro4 accepts more context: 524K tokens versus 131K.
- Qwen3 32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Qwen3 32B | Solar Pro4 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | Upstage |
| Noometry Index | 39.2 | 42.1 |
| Released | 2025-04 | 2026-08-06 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 131K | 524K |
| Max output | 16K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.70 | $0.30 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2.80 | $1.20 |
| Results tracked | 26 | 18 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Solar Pro4 leads
Qwen3 32B: 37.7 (#190), Solar Pro4: 40.1 (#149)
| Benchmark | Qwen3 32B | Solar Pro4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1358 | 1437 |
| Aider Polyglot | 40% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1371 |
| SciCode | 35.4% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Qwen3 32B: 32.6 (#62), Solar Pro4: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3 32B | Solar Pro4 |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 48.7% | — |
Reasoning Solar Pro4 leads
Qwen3 32B: 20.2 (#241), Solar Pro4: 28.5 (#104)
| Benchmark | Qwen3 32B | Solar Pro4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1334 | 1399 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 54.9% | — |
| CritPt | 0.3% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 5% | — |
| DTBench | 67.5% | — |
| LMCA | 17.3% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 138.51 | — |
Math Too close to call
Qwen3 32B: 39.7 (#99), Solar Pro4: 38.8 (#128)
| Benchmark | Qwen3 32B | Solar Pro4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1399 | 1416 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 66.9% | — |
Knowledge Too close to call
Qwen3 32B: 40.0 (#125), Solar Pro4: 39.8 (#129)
| Benchmark | Qwen3 32B | Solar Pro4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1362 | 1427 |
| GPQA Diamond | 65.7% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 5.9% | — |
Multilingual Solar Pro4 leads
Qwen3 32B: 45.6 (#167), Solar Pro4: 48.7 (#139)
| Benchmark | Qwen3 32B | Solar Pro4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1317 | 1361 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1357 | 1415 |
| LMArena German | 1341 | 1364 |
| LMArena Russian | 1311 | 1360 |
| LMArena French | — | 1397 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1309 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1382 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1401 |
Instruction Following Solar Pro4 leads
Qwen3 32B: 68.9 (#179), Solar Pro4: 72.7 (#132)
| Benchmark | Qwen3 32B | Solar Pro4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1305 | 1377 |
Long Context Qwen3 32B leads
Qwen3 32B: 43.8 (#87), Solar Pro4: 42.1 (#130)
| Benchmark | Qwen3 32B | Solar Pro4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1327 | 1381 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 74.2% | — |
Writing & Preference Solar Pro4 leads
Qwen3 32B: 52.9 (#163), Solar Pro4: 56.5 (#138)
| Benchmark | Qwen3 32B | Solar Pro4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1340 | 1386 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1297 | 1316 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1331 | 1385 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Qwen3 32B better than Solar Pro4?
Solar Pro4 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.1 to 39.2 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Qwen3 32B or Solar Pro4?
Solar Pro4 is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $1.20 per million output tokens; Qwen3 32B lists at $0.70 and $2.80.
Is Qwen3 32B or Solar Pro4 better for coding?
Solar Pro4 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.1 versus 37.7 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Solar Pro4 does, with 524K tokens against 131K.
How many benchmarks do Qwen3 32B and Solar Pro4 share?
13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen3 32B has 26 scored results on Noometry and Solar Pro4 has 18.