# Llama 4 Scout vs Qwen3 32B

> Qwen3 32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.2 to 27.7 on the Noometry Index. Llama 4 Scout costs 8.2× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3 32B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/llama-4-scout-vs-qwen3-32b
- Last updated: 2026-10-12
- Shared benchmarks: 24

## Summary

- They share 24 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 4 Scout scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3 32B in 9 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3 32B leads 39.7 to 19.6.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 7.8% for Llama 4 Scout and 66.9% for Qwen3 32B.
- Llama 4 Scout is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.30 per million input/output tokens, against $0.70 / $2.80 for Qwen3 32B.
- Qwen3 32B accepts more context: 131K tokens versus 128K.

## Snapshot

| | Llama 4 Scout | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 27.7 | 39.2 |
| Rank | 330 | 172 |
| Context | 128K | 131K |
| Input $/M | $0.10 | $0.70 |
| Output $/M | $0.30 | $2.80 |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Llama 4 Scout: 20.2 (#339)
- Qwen3 32B: 37.7 (#190)

| Benchmark | Llama 4 Scout | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 17% | 35.4% |
| LMArena Coding | 1286 | 1358 |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 9.1% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 40% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 43.1% | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Llama 4 Scout: 24.6 (#119)
- Qwen3 32B: 32.6 (#62)

| Benchmark | Llama 4 Scout | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 28.1% | 48.7% |

## Reasoning

- Llama 4 Scout: 9.1 (#345)
- Qwen3 32B: 20.2 (#241)

| Benchmark | Llama 4 Scout | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 36.9% | 54.9% |
| CritPt | 0% | 0.3% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1266 | 1334 |
| DTBench | 57.9% | 67.5% |
| LMCA | 12% | 17.3% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 129.64 | 138.51 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 0% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 0.5% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 5% |
| ForecastBench | 57.5 | — |

## Math

- Llama 4 Scout: 19.6 (#286)
- Qwen3 32B: 39.7 (#99)

| Benchmark | Llama 4 Scout | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 7.8% | 66.9% |
| LMArena Math | 1287 | 1399 |
| Omni-MATH | 37.3% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 62.3% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 0% | — |

## Knowledge

- Llama 4 Scout: 31.9 (#217)
- Qwen3 32B: 40.0 (#125)

| Benchmark | Llama 4 Scout | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 51.8% | 65.7% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 7.7% | 5.9% |
| LMArena Expert | 1235 | 1362 |
| MMLU-Pro | 74.2% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 50.7% | — |

## Multimodal

- Llama 4 Scout: 32.2 (#102)
- Qwen3 32B: —

| Benchmark | Llama 4 Scout | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1118 | — |
| SpatialViz-Bench | 34.2% | — |

## Multilingual

- Llama 4 Scout: 41.0 (#212)
- Qwen3 32B: 45.6 (#167)

| Benchmark | Llama 4 Scout | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1252 | 1317 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1255 | 1357 |
| LMArena German | 1272 | 1341 |
| LMArena Russian | 1263 | 1311 |
| LMArena French | 1282 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1206 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1207 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1278 | — |

## Instruction Following

- Llama 4 Scout: 65.8 (#217)
- Qwen3 32B: 68.9 (#179)

| Benchmark | Llama 4 Scout | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1248 | 1305 |
| IFEval | 81.8% | — |

## Long Context

- Llama 4 Scout: 27.5 (#294)
- Qwen3 32B: 43.8 (#87)

| Benchmark | Llama 4 Scout | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 36% | 74.2% |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1265 | 1327 |

## Writing & Preference

- Llama 4 Scout: 37.0 (#261)
- Qwen3 32B: 52.9 (#163)

| Benchmark | Llama 4 Scout | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1279 | 1340 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1249 | 1297 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1280 | 1331 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 783 | — |
| WildBench | 78% | — |

## FAQ

### Is Llama 4 Scout better than Qwen3 32B?

Qwen3 32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.2 to 27.7 on the Noometry Index. Llama 4 Scout costs 8.2× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3 32B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, Llama 4 Scout or Qwen3 32B?

Llama 4 Scout is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.30 per million output tokens; Qwen3 32B lists at $0.70 and $2.80.

### Is Llama 4 Scout or Qwen3 32B better for coding?

Qwen3 32B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.7 versus 20.2 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3 32B does, with 131K tokens against 128K.

### How many benchmarks do Llama 4 Scout and Qwen3 32B share?

24 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 4 Scout has 43 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 32B has 26.