# o1-pro vs Qwen3 32B

> Qwen3 32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 31.2 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/o1-pro-vs-qwen3-32b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 0

## Summary

- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3 32B leads 40.0 to 29.3.
- Qwen3 32B is cheaper at $0.70 / $2.80 per million input/output tokens, against $150 / $600 for o1-pro.
- o1-pro accepts more context: 200K tokens versus 131K.
- Qwen3 32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | o1-pro | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 31.2 | 38.8 |
| Rank | 264 | 166 |
| Context | 200K | 131K |
| Input $/M | $150 | $0.70 |
| Output $/M | $600 | $2.80 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- o1-pro: —
- Qwen3 32B: 37.3 (#184)

| Benchmark | o1-pro | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Aider Polyglot | — | 40% |
| SciCode | — | 35.4% |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1358 |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- o1-pro: —
- Qwen3 32B: 32.3 (#58)

| Benchmark | o1-pro | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 48.7% |

## Reasoning

- o1-pro: 20.2 (#223)
- Qwen3 32B: 19.6 (#233)

| Benchmark | o1-pro | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 54.9% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 23.3% | — |
| CritPt | — | 0.3% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 5% |
| EnigmaEval | 6.1% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1335 |
| DTBench | — | 67.5% |
| LMCA | — | 17.3% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 138.51 |

## Math

- o1-pro: —
- Qwen3 32B: 37.9 (#89)

| Benchmark | o1-pro | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 66.9% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1399 |

## Knowledge

- o1-pro: 29.3 (#227)
- Qwen3 32B: 40.0 (#112)

| Benchmark | o1-pro | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 65.7% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 8.1% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 5.9% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1362 |

## Multilingual

- o1-pro: —
- Qwen3 32B: 45.8 (#162)

| Benchmark | o1-pro | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1317 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1357 |
| LMArena German | — | 1341 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1311 |

## Instruction Following

- o1-pro: —
- Qwen3 32B: 69.1 (#174)

| Benchmark | o1-pro | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1305 |

## Long Context

- o1-pro: —
- Qwen3 32B: 43.7 (#83)

| Benchmark | o1-pro | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 74.2% |
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1327 |

## Writing & Preference

- o1-pro: —
- Qwen3 32B: 53.1 (#158)

| Benchmark | o1-pro | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1340 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1297 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1331 |

## FAQ

### Is o1-pro better than Qwen3 32B?

Qwen3 32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 31.2 on the Noometry Index.

### Which is cheaper, o1-pro or Qwen3 32B?

Qwen3 32B is cheaper. It lists at $0.70 per million input tokens and $2.80 per million output tokens; o1-pro lists at $150 and $600.

### Which has the bigger context window?

o1-pro does, with 200K tokens against 131K.

### How many benchmarks do o1-pro and Qwen3 32B share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. o1-pro has 3 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 32B has 26.