# Qwen1.5-32B vs Qwen3 32B

> Qwen3 32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.2 to 30.5 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/qwen1-5-32b-vs-qwen3-32b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 14

## Summary

- They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen1.5-32B scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3 32B in 7 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3 32B leads 40.0 to 13.5.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 30.7% for Qwen1.5-32B and 65.7% for Qwen3 32B.

## Snapshot

| | Qwen1.5-32B | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 30.5 | 39.2 |
| Rank | 293 | 172 |
| Context | — | 131K |
| Input $/M | — | $0.70 |
| Output $/M | — | $2.80 |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Qwen1.5-32B: 31.7 (#282)
- Qwen3 32B: 37.7 (#190)

| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-32B | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1155 | 1358 |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 40% |
| SciCode | — | 35.4% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 32.3% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 42% | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Qwen1.5-32B: —
- Qwen3 32B: 32.6 (#62)

| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-32B | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 48.7% |

## Reasoning

- Qwen1.5-32B: 21.8 (#212)
- Qwen3 32B: 20.2 (#241)

| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-32B | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1130 | 1334 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 54.9% |
| CritPt | — | 0.3% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 5% |
| DTBench | — | 67.5% |
| LMCA | — | 17.3% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 138.51 |

## Math

- Qwen1.5-32B: 33.0 (#207)
- Qwen3 32B: 39.7 (#99)

| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-32B | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1155 | 1399 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 66.9% |

## Knowledge

- Qwen1.5-32B: 13.5 (#296)
- Qwen3 32B: 40.0 (#125)

| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-32B | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 30.7% | 65.7% |
| LMArena Expert | 1126 | 1362 |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 5.9% |
| MMLU | 74.4% | — |

## Multilingual

- Qwen1.5-32B: 31.4 (#259)
- Qwen3 32B: 45.6 (#167)

| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-32B | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1106 | 1317 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1177 | 1357 |
| LMArena German | 1058 | 1341 |
| LMArena Russian | 1073 | 1311 |
| LMArena French | 1101 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1027 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1008 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1089 | — |

## Instruction Following

- Qwen1.5-32B: 57.7 (#265)
- Qwen3 32B: 68.9 (#179)

| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-32B | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1116 | 1305 |

## Long Context

- Qwen1.5-32B: 34.7 (#246)
- Qwen3 32B: 43.8 (#87)

| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-32B | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1146 | 1327 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 74.2% |

## Writing & Preference

- Qwen1.5-32B: 34.2 (#271)
- Qwen3 32B: 52.9 (#163)

| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-32B | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1137 | 1340 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1083 | 1297 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1140 | 1331 |

## FAQ

### Is Qwen1.5-32B better than Qwen3 32B?

Qwen3 32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.2 to 30.5 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Qwen1.5-32B or Qwen3 32B better for coding?

Qwen3 32B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.7 versus 31.7 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Qwen1.5-32B and Qwen3 32B share?

14 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen1.5-32B has 21 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 32B has 26.