# o1-pro vs Qwen2.5-Coder-32B

> Qwen2.5-Coder-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.4 to 31.5 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/o1-pro-vs-qwen2-5-coder-32b
- Last updated: 2026-10-11
- Shared benchmarks: 0

## Summary

- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen2.5-Coder-32B leads 33.4 to 29.7.
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B is cheaper at $0.66 / $1 per million input/output tokens, against $150 / $600 for o1-pro.
- o1-pro accepts more context: 200K tokens versus 33K.
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | o1-pro | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 31.5 | 33.4 |
| Rank | 271 | 245 |
| Context | 200K | 33K |
| Input $/M | $150 | $0.66 |
| Output $/M | $600 | $1 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- o1-pro: —
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 22.6 (#333)

| Benchmark | o1-pro | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | — | 9% |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 16.4% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 49% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 56.9% |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1276 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 58% |
| HumanEval+ | — | 87.2% |
| MBPP+ | — | 77% |

## Reasoning

- o1-pro: 20.4 (#239)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 21.2 (#225)

| Benchmark | o1-pro | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-1 | 23.3% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 6.1% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 42.1% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1251 |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 49.9% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 119.49 |
| HellaSwag | — | 83% |
| LiveBench | — | 46.2% |
| WinoGrande | — | 80.8% |

## Math

- o1-pro: —
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.3 (#204)

| Benchmark | o1-pro | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Math | — | 46.6% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1251 |
| GSM8K | — | 93% |

## Knowledge

- o1-pro: 29.7 (#234)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.4 (#203)

| Benchmark | o1-pro | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Humanity's Last Exam | 8.1% | — |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1221 |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 70.5% |
| MMLU | — | 79.1% |

## Multilingual

- o1-pro: —
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 37.8 (#235)

| Benchmark | o1-pro | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1205 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1222 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1228 |

## Instruction Following

- o1-pro: —
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 61.4 (#245)

| Benchmark | o1-pro | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 58.7% |
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1223 |

## Long Context

- o1-pro: —
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 38.0 (#208)

| Benchmark | o1-pro | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1251 |

## Writing & Preference

- o1-pro: —
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 41.6 (#240)

| Benchmark | o1-pro | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1230 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1174 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1222 |
| LiveBench Language | — | 23.3% |

## FAQ

### Is o1-pro better than Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.4 to 31.5 on the Noometry Index.

### Which is cheaper, o1-pro or Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B is cheaper. It lists at $0.66 per million input tokens and $1 per million output tokens; o1-pro lists at $150 and $600.

### Which has the bigger context window?

o1-pro does, with 200K tokens against 33K.

### How many benchmarks do o1-pro and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. o1-pro has 3 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has 31.