# o3-pro vs Qwen2.5 32B Instruct

> o3-pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.9 to 30.1 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5 32B Instruct costs 29× less per token, which makes it the better buy when o3-pro's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/o3-pro-vs-qwen2-5-32b-instruct
- Last updated: 2026-10-11
- Shared benchmarks: 1

## Summary

- They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. o3-pro scores higher in 3 categories and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct in 0 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in coding, where o3-pro leads 55.5 to 38.7.
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct is cheaper at $0.70 / $2.80 per million input/output tokens, against $20 / $80 for o3-pro.
- o3-pro accepts more context: 200K tokens versus 131K.
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | o3-pro | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 42.9 | 30.1 |
| Rank | 105 | 297 |
| Context | 200K | 131K |
| Input $/M | $20 | $0.70 |
| Output $/M | $80 | $2.80 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- o3-pro: 55.5 (#24)
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 38.7 (#169)

| Benchmark | o3-pro | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Aider Polyglot | 84.9% | — |
| WeirdML | 58.2% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 45% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 52.3% |

## Reasoning

- o3-pro: 23.8 (#171)
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 19.2 (#266)

| Benchmark | o3-pro | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 147.42 | 128.52 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 4.9% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 72.1% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 59.3% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| DTBench | 86.9% | — |
| LMCA | 38.5% | — |

## Math

- o3-pro: —
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 16.2 (#296)

| Benchmark | o3-pro | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 7.4% |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 56.1% |

## Knowledge

- o3-pro: 29.5 (#238)
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 24.9 (#266)

| Benchmark | o3-pro | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 46.1% |
| Confabulations | 14.2% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 23.3% | — |

## Long Context

- o3-pro: 72.2 (#1)
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

| Benchmark | o3-pro | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 97.2% | — |

## Writing & Preference

- o3-pro: 57.1 (#133)
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

| Benchmark | o3-pro | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 84.4% | — |

## FAQ

### Is o3-pro better than Qwen2.5 32B Instruct?

o3-pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.9 to 30.1 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5 32B Instruct costs 29× less per token, which makes it the better buy when o3-pro's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, o3-pro 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; o3-pro lists at $20 and $80.

### Is o3-pro or Qwen2.5 32B Instruct better for coding?

o3-pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 55.5 versus 38.7 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

o3-pro does, with 200K tokens against 131K.

### How many benchmarks do o3-pro and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct share?

1 benchmark has published results for both models. o3-pro has 12 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct has 7.