# Nova 2.0 Pro Preview vs Qwen3 32B

> Qwen3 32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 32.8 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/nova-2-0-pro-preview-vs-qwen3-32b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 2

## Summary

- They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. Nova 2.0 Pro Preview scores higher in 2 categories and Qwen3 32B in 1 category; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in agentic & tool use, where Qwen3 32B leads 32.3 to 21.9.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is SciCode: 42.7% for Nova 2.0 Pro Preview and 35.4% for Qwen3 32B.
- Qwen3 32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Nova 2.0 Pro Preview | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Amazon | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 32.8 | 38.8 |
| Rank | 241 | 166 |
| Context | — | 131K |
| Input $/M | — | $0.70 |
| Output $/M | — | $2.80 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Nova 2.0 Pro Preview: 40.2 (#130)
- Qwen3 32B: 37.3 (#184)

| Benchmark | Nova 2.0 Pro Preview | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 42.7% | 35.4% |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 40% |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1358 |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Nova 2.0 Pro Preview: 21.9 (#127)
- Qwen3 32B: 32.3 (#58)

| Benchmark | Nova 2.0 Pro Preview | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 48.7% |
| GDP.pdf | 2% | — |

## Reasoning

- Nova 2.0 Pro Preview: 21.7 (#189)
- Qwen3 32B: 19.6 (#233)

| Benchmark | Nova 2.0 Pro Preview | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 0% | 0.3% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 54.9% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 5% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1335 |
| DTBench | — | 67.5% |
| LMCA | — | 17.3% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 138.51 |

## Math

- Nova 2.0 Pro Preview: —
- Qwen3 32B: 37.9 (#89)

| Benchmark | Nova 2.0 Pro Preview | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 66.9% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1399 |

## Knowledge

- Nova 2.0 Pro Preview: —
- Qwen3 32B: 40.0 (#112)

| Benchmark | Nova 2.0 Pro Preview | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 65.7% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 5.9% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1362 |

## Multilingual

- Nova 2.0 Pro Preview: —
- Qwen3 32B: 45.8 (#162)

| Benchmark | Nova 2.0 Pro Preview | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1317 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1357 |
| LMArena German | — | 1341 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1311 |

## Instruction Following

- Nova 2.0 Pro Preview: —
- Qwen3 32B: 69.1 (#174)

| Benchmark | Nova 2.0 Pro Preview | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1305 |

## Long Context

- Nova 2.0 Pro Preview: —
- Qwen3 32B: 43.7 (#83)

| Benchmark | Nova 2.0 Pro Preview | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 74.2% |
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1327 |

## Writing & Preference

- Nova 2.0 Pro Preview: —
- Qwen3 32B: 53.1 (#158)

| Benchmark | Nova 2.0 Pro Preview | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1340 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1297 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1331 |

## FAQ

### Is Nova 2.0 Pro Preview better than Qwen3 32B?

Qwen3 32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 32.8 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Nova 2.0 Pro Preview or Qwen3 32B better for coding?

Nova 2.0 Pro Preview scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.2 versus 37.3 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Nova 2.0 Pro Preview and Qwen3 32B share?

2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Nova 2.0 Pro Preview has 3 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 32B has 26.