Model comparison
Grok 4.3 vs Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
Grok 4.3 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.6 to 32.9 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5-Coder-32B costs 2.1× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.3's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.3 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Grok 4.3 leads 52.5 to 32.9.
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B is cheaper at $0.66 / $1 per million input/output tokens, against $1.25 / $2.50 for Grok 4.3.
- Grok 4.3 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 33K.
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Grok 4.3 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 43.6 | 32.9 |
| Released | 2026-04-17 | 2024-09-18 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1M | 33K |
| Max output | 30K | 29K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.25 | $0.66 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2.50 | $1 |
| Results tracked | 40 | 31 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Grok 4.3 leads
Grok 4.3: 41.3 (#117), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 22.4 (#328)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.3 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1415 | 1276 |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | — | 9% |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 16.4% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1357 | — |
| SciCode | 47.3% | — |
| WeirdML | 49.9% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 49% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 56.9% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 58% |
| ALE-Bench | 944.17 | — |
| HumanEval+ | — | 87.2% |
| MBPP+ | — | 77% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Grok 4.3: 27.6 (#93), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.3 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| GDP.pdf | 8% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1165 | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 35.26 | — |
Reasoning Grok 4.3 leads
Grok 4.3: 34.9 (#60), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 20.4 (#220)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.3 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1397 | 1251 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 149.13 | 119.41 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 55.2% | — |
| CritPt | 8% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 25% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 42.1% |
| DTBench | 90.7% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 49.9% |
| LMCA | 38.3% | — |
| ForecastBench | 60.3 | — |
| HellaSwag | — | 83% |
| LiveBench | — | 46.2% |
| WinoGrande | — | 80.8% |
Math Grok 4.3 leads
Grok 4.3: 45.8 (#60), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 30.8 (#203)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.3 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1388 | 1251 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 42.8% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 14.6% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 93.3% | — |
| ProofBench | 11% | — |
| LiveBench Math | — | 46.6% |
| GSM8K | — | 93% |
Knowledge Grok 4.3 leads
Grok 4.3: 52.5 (#57), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 32.9 (#200)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.3 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1385 | 1221 |
| GPQA Diamond | 88.8% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 33.2% | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 70.5% |
| MMLU | — | 79.1% |
Multimodal Not comparable
Grok 4.3: 31.6 (#96), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.3 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1231 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 0% | — |
Multilingual Grok 4.3 leads
Grok 4.3: 50.7 (#114), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 38.0 (#230)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.3 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1385 | 1205 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1423 | 1222 |
| LMArena Russian | 1399 | 1228 |
| LMArena French | 1412 | — |
| LMArena German | 1395 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1379 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1357 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1402 | — |
Instruction Following Grok 4.3 leads
Grok 4.3: 72.3 (#135), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 61.6 (#240)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.3 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1366 | 1223 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 58.7% |
Long Context Grok 4.3 leads
Grok 4.3: 42.5 (#118), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 37.9 (#204)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.3 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1393 | 1251 |
Writing & Preference Grok 4.3 leads
Grok 4.3: 58.6 (#112), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 41.8 (#235)
| Benchmark | Grok 4.3 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1397 | 1230 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1380 | 1174 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1406 | 1222 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1075 | — |
| LiveBench Language | — | 23.3% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Grok 4.3 better than Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?
Grok 4.3 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.6 to 32.9 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5-Coder-32B costs 2.1× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.3's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Grok 4.3 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; Grok 4.3 lists at $1.25 and $2.50.
Is Grok 4.3 or Qwen2.5-Coder-32B better for coding?
Grok 4.3 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.3 versus 22.4 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Grok 4.3 does, with 1M tokens against 33K.
How many benchmarks do Grok 4.3 and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B share?
13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.3 has 40 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has 31.