# Inkling vs Qwen2.5 32B Instruct

> Inkling is the stronger model overall, scoring 44.1 to 29.7 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5 32B Instruct costs 2.1× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Inkling's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/inkling-vs-qwen2-5-32b-instruct
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 4

## Summary

- They share 4 benchmarks with published results for both. Inkling scores higher in 3 categories and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct in 1 category; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Inkling leads 55.2 to 24.9.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 88.9% for Inkling and 7.4% for Qwen2.5 32B Instruct.
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct is cheaper at $0.70 / $2.80 per million input/output tokens, against $1.87 / $4.68 for Inkling.
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct accepts more context: 131K tokens versus 66K.

## Snapshot

| | Inkling | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Thinking Machines Lab | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 44.1 | 29.7 |
| Rank | 75 | 291 |
| Context | 66K | 131K |
| Input $/M | $1.87 | $0.70 |
| Output $/M | $4.68 | $2.80 |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Inkling: 34.1 (#229)
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 38.1 (#165)

| Benchmark | Inkling | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierCode | 14% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1412 | — |
| FrontierSWE | 4.1% | — |
| SciCode | 47% | — |
| WeirdML | 32.3% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 45% |
| LMArena Coding | 1463 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 52.3% |
| ALE-Bench | 946 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Inkling: 29.5 (#76)
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

| Benchmark | Inkling | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 33.8% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 25% | — |

## Reasoning

- Inkling: 40.6 (#48)
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 18.5 (#262)

| Benchmark | Inkling | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 21% | 0% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 148.6 | 128.52 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 36.5% | — |
| SimpleBench | 50% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 79.5% | — |
| CritPt | 5.4% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1452 | — |
| DTBench | 87.5% | — |
| LMCA | 37.6% | — |

## Math

- Inkling: 31.2 (#198)
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 15.3 (#289)

| Benchmark | Inkling | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 88.9% | 7.4% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 33.3% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 4.9% | — |
| ProofBench | 0% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1482 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 56.1% |

## Knowledge

- Inkling: 55.2 (#44)
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 24.9 (#259)

| Benchmark | Inkling | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 88.3% | 46.1% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 40.3% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1468 | — |

## Multilingual

- Inkling: 54.2 (#49)
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

| Benchmark | Inkling | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1434 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1495 | — |
| LMArena French | 1453 | — |
| LMArena German | 1456 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1428 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1401 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1430 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1442 | — |

## Instruction Following

- Inkling: 75.3 (#65)
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

| Benchmark | Inkling | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1427 | — |

## Long Context

- Inkling: 43.9 (#79)
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

| Benchmark | Inkling | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1436 | — |

## Writing & Preference

- Inkling: 65.5 (#48)
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

| Benchmark | Inkling | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1443 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1390 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1611 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1226 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1436 | — |

## FAQ

### Is Inkling better than Qwen2.5 32B Instruct?

Inkling is the stronger model overall, scoring 44.1 to 29.7 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5 32B Instruct costs 2.1× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Inkling's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, Inkling 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; Inkling lists at $1.87 and $4.68.

### Is Inkling or Qwen2.5 32B Instruct better for coding?

Qwen2.5 32B Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.1 versus 34.1 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen2.5 32B Instruct does, with 131K tokens against 66K.

### How many benchmarks do Inkling and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct share?

4 benchmarks have published results for both models. Inkling has 41 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct has 7.