Noometry

Model comparison

Qwen3.5-Flash vs QwQ-32B

Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.5 to 39.8 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 21 shared benchmarks.

Qwen3.5-Flash Alibaba (Qwen)

42.5

Rank #112 Confirmed

QwQ-32B Alibaba (Qwen)

39.8

Rank #159 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 21 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen3.5-Flash scores higher in 4 categories and QwQ-32B in 4 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen3.5-Flash leads 33.7 to 23.7.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 84.4% for Qwen3.5-Flash and 59.2% for QwQ-32B.
  • QwQ-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Qwen3.5-FlashQwQ-32B
ProviderAlibaba (Qwen)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index42.539.8
Released2026-02-232024-11-28
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M—
Max output66K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.10—
Output $ / M tokens$0.40—
Results tracked3236

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

Category by category

Coding QwQ-32B leads

Qwen3.5-Flash: 34.2 (#242), QwQ-32B: 35.4 (#226)

BenchmarkQwen3.5-FlashQwQ-32B
LMArena Coding14121333
Aider Polyglot—20.9%
LMArena WebDev1244—
BigCodeBench Instruct—44.6%
LiveBench Coding—72.2%
BigCodeBench Complete—54.4%
ALE-Bench221.8—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Qwen3.5-Flash: —, QwQ-32B: —

BenchmarkQwen3.5-FlashQwQ-32B
Vending-Bench 2462.69—

Reasoning Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Qwen3.5-Flash: 33.7 (#72), QwQ-32B: 23.7 (#174)

BenchmarkQwen3.5-FlashQwQ-32B
Chess Puzzles21%5%
LMArena Hard Prompts14031325
Epoch Capabilities Index143.98137.6
LiveBench Reasoning—83.5%
Mystery Game Puzzles20%—
DTBench82.9%—
LiveBench Data Analysis—65%
LMCA29.1%—
ForecastBench—58.3
LiveBench—72%

Math Too close to call

Qwen3.5-Flash: 37.4 (#158), QwQ-32B: 38.0 (#143)

BenchmarkQwen3.5-FlashQwQ-32B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202584.4%59.2%
LMArena Math14071359
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)18.2%—
LiveBench Math—77.8%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)6.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)0%—

Knowledge Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Qwen3.5-Flash: 43.2 (#93), QwQ-32B: 37.2 (#158)

BenchmarkQwen3.5-FlashQwQ-32B
GPQA Diamond82.3%65.3%
LMArena Expert14071324
SimpleQA Verified20.3%—
Confabulations—15.6%
Vectara Hallucination Rate10.5%—

Multilingual Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Qwen3.5-Flash: 50.5 (#121), QwQ-32B: 44.8 (#176)

BenchmarkQwen3.5-FlashQwQ-32B
LMArena Non-English13851305
LMArena Chinese14461378
LMArena French14121336
LMArena German13901313
LMArena Japanese13681262
LMArena Korean13441279
LMArena Russian13791297
LMArena Spanish14001354

Instruction Following Too close to call

Qwen3.5-Flash: 72.6 (#139), QwQ-32B: 72.6 (#137)

BenchmarkQwen3.5-FlashQwQ-32B
LMArena Instruction Following13741297
LiveBench Instruction Following—81.8%

Long Context QwQ-32B leads

Qwen3.5-Flash: 42.4 (#124), QwQ-32B: 49.0 (#11)

BenchmarkQwen3.5-FlashQwQ-32B
LMArena Longer Query13921308
Fiction.LiveBench—83.3%

Writing & Preference Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Qwen3.5-Flash: 57.9 (#122), QwQ-32B: 50.6 (#180)

BenchmarkQwen3.5-FlashQwQ-32B
LMArena Text13971329
LMArena Creative Writing13431288
LMArena Multi-Turn13931314
Short-Story Creative Writing—80.2%
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—1257
LiveBench Language—51.4%

Frequently asked questions

Is Qwen3.5-Flash better than QwQ-32B?

Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.5 to 39.8 on the Noometry Index.

Is Qwen3.5-Flash or QwQ-32B better for coding?

QwQ-32B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 35.4 versus 34.2 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Qwen3.5-Flash and QwQ-32B share?

21 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen3.5-Flash has 32 scored results on Noometry and QwQ-32B has 36.

Related comparisons

Go deeper