Noometry

Model comparison

Qwen3 32B vs Step 5 Preview

Step 5 Preview is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.8 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.

Qwen3 32B Alibaba (Qwen)

38.8

Rank #166 Confirmed

Step 5 Preview StepFun

43.8

Rank #78 Reported

Summary

  • They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen3 32B scores higher in 0 categories and Step 5 Preview in 2 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Step 5 Preview leads 38.0 to 19.6.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is SciCode: 35.4% for Qwen3 32B and 58.9% for Step 5 Preview.
  • Qwen3 32B is cheaper at $0.70 / $2.80 per million input/output tokens, against $1 / $2.70 for Step 5 Preview.
  • Step 5 Preview accepts more context: 1.02M tokens versus 131K.
  • Qwen3 32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Qwen3 32BStep 5 Preview
ProviderAlibaba (Qwen)StepFun
Noometry Index38.843.8
Released2025-042026-09-16
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window131K1.02M
Max output16K66K
Input $ / M tokens$0.70$1
Output $ / M tokens$2.80$2.70
Results tracked263

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

Category by category

Coding Step 5 Preview leads

Qwen3 32B: 37.3 (#184), Step 5 Preview: 50.6 (#40)

BenchmarkQwen3 32BStep 5 Preview
SciCode35.4%58.9%
Aider Polyglot40%—
LMArena WebDev—1569
LMArena Coding1358—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Qwen3 32B: 32.3 (#58), Step 5 Preview: —

BenchmarkQwen3 32BStep 5 Preview
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard48.7%—

Reasoning Step 5 Preview leads

Qwen3 32B: 19.6 (#233), Step 5 Preview: 38.0 (#58)

BenchmarkQwen3 32BStep 5 Preview
CritPt0.3%20.9%
Kagi LLM Benchmark54.9%—
Chess Puzzles5%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1335—
DTBench67.5%—
LMCA17.3%—
Epoch Capabilities Index138.51—

Math Not comparable

Qwen3 32B: 37.9 (#89), Step 5 Preview: —

BenchmarkQwen3 32BStep 5 Preview
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202566.9%—
LMArena Math1399—

Knowledge Not comparable

Qwen3 32B: 40.0 (#112), Step 5 Preview: —

BenchmarkQwen3 32BStep 5 Preview
GPQA Diamond65.7%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate5.9%—
LMArena Expert1362—

Multilingual Not comparable

Qwen3 32B: 45.8 (#162), Step 5 Preview: —

BenchmarkQwen3 32BStep 5 Preview
LMArena Non-English1317—
LMArena Chinese1357—
LMArena German1341—
LMArena Russian1311—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Qwen3 32B: 69.1 (#174), Step 5 Preview: —

BenchmarkQwen3 32BStep 5 Preview
LMArena Instruction Following1305—

Long Context Not comparable

Qwen3 32B: 43.7 (#83), Step 5 Preview: —

BenchmarkQwen3 32BStep 5 Preview
Fiction.LiveBench74.2%—
LMArena Longer Query1327—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Qwen3 32B: 53.1 (#158), Step 5 Preview: —

BenchmarkQwen3 32BStep 5 Preview
LMArena Text1340—
LMArena Creative Writing1297—
LMArena Multi-Turn1331—

Frequently asked questions

Is Qwen3 32B better than Step 5 Preview?

Step 5 Preview is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.8 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Qwen3 32B or Step 5 Preview?

Qwen3 32B is cheaper. It lists at $0.70 per million input tokens and $2.80 per million output tokens; Step 5 Preview lists at $1 and $2.70.

Is Qwen3 32B or Step 5 Preview better for coding?

Step 5 Preview scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.6 versus 37.3 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Step 5 Preview does, with 1.02M tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks do Qwen3 32B and Step 5 Preview share?

2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen3 32B has 26 scored results on Noometry and Step 5 Preview has 3.

Related comparisons

Go deeper