# GPT-5.1-Codex vs Qwen2.5 32B Instruct

> GPT-5.1-Codex is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.6 to 30.1 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5 32B Instruct costs 2.8× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.1-Codex's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/gpt-5-1-codex-vs-qwen2-5-32b-instruct
- Last updated: 2026-10-12
- Shared benchmarks: 0

## Summary

- The widest gap is in math, where GPT-5.1-Codex leads 30.3 to 16.2.
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct is cheaper at $0.70 / $2.80 per million input/output tokens, against $1.25 / $10 for GPT-5.1-Codex.
- GPT-5.1-Codex accepts more context: 400K tokens versus 131K.
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | GPT-5.1-Codex | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 38.6 | 30.1 |
| Rank | 186 | 297 |
| Context | 400K | 131K |
| Input $/M | $1.25 | $0.70 |
| Output $/M | $10 | $2.80 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- GPT-5.1-Codex: 41.9 (#116)
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 38.7 (#169)

| Benchmark | GPT-5.1-Codex | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 66% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1337 | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 45% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 52.3% |
| ALE-Bench | 1,245 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- GPT-5.1-Codex: 38.0 (#33)
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

| Benchmark | GPT-5.1-Codex | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 60.4% | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 70.8% | — |

## Reasoning

- GPT-5.1-Codex: —
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 19.2 (#266)

| Benchmark | GPT-5.1-Codex | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 128.52 |

## Math

- GPT-5.1-Codex: 30.3 (#235)
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 16.2 (#296)

| Benchmark | GPT-5.1-Codex | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 7.4% |
| ProofBench | 9% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 56.1% |

## Knowledge

- GPT-5.1-Codex: —
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 24.9 (#266)

| Benchmark | GPT-5.1-Codex | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 46.1% |

## FAQ

### Is GPT-5.1-Codex better than Qwen2.5 32B Instruct?

GPT-5.1-Codex is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.6 to 30.1 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5 32B Instruct costs 2.8× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.1-Codex's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, GPT-5.1-Codex or Qwen2.5 32B Instruct?

Qwen2.5 32B Instruct is cheaper. It lists at $0.70 per million input tokens and $2.80 per million output tokens; GPT-5.1-Codex lists at $1.25 and $10.

### Is GPT-5.1-Codex or Qwen2.5 32B Instruct better for coding?

GPT-5.1-Codex scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.9 versus 38.7 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

GPT-5.1-Codex does, with 400K tokens against 131K.

### How many benchmarks do GPT-5.1-Codex and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-5.1-Codex has 6 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct has 7.