Model comparison

Llama 4 Maverick vs Qwen2.5-Coder-32B

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.4 to 30.9 on the Noometry Index. Llama 4 Maverick costs 2.5× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen2.5-Coder-32B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.

Llama 4 Maverick Meta

30.9

Rank #282 Confirmed

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B Alibaba (Qwen)

33.4

Rank #245 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 4 Maverick scores higher in 3 categories and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B in 5 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen2.5-Coder-32B leads 21.2 to 10.1.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is SWE-bench Verified (bash only): 21% for Llama 4 Maverick and 9% for Qwen2.5-Coder-32B.
  • Llama 4 Maverick is cheaper at $0.19 / $0.65 per million input/output tokens, against $0.66 / $1 for Qwen2.5-Coder-32B.
  • Llama 4 Maverick accepts more context: 128K tokens versus 33K.

Side by side

Llama 4 Maverick and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B specifications
Llama 4 MaverickQwen2.5-Coder-32B
ProviderMetaAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index30.933.4
Released2025-04-052024-09-18
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window128K33K
Max output4K29K
Input $ / M tokens$0.19$0.66
Output $ / M tokens$0.65$1
Results tracked5431

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Llama 4 Maverick leads

Llama 4 Maverick: 26.6 (#324), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 22.6 (#333)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 4 MaverickQwen2.5-Coder-32B
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)21%9%
Aider Polyglot15.6%16.4%
BigCodeBench Instruct49.7%49%
LMArena Coding13021276
BigCodeBench Complete61.4%58%
SciCode33.1%—
WeirdML24.5%—
LiveBench Coding—56.9%
ALE-Bench172.97—
HumanEval+—87.2%
MBPP+—77%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Llama 4 Maverick: 28.2 (#91), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 4 MaverickQwen2.5-Coder-32B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard37.3%—

Reasoning Qwen2.5-Coder-32B leads

Llama 4 Maverick: 10.1 (#342), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 21.2 (#225)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 4 MaverickQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Hard Prompts12811251
Epoch Capabilities Index132.2119.49
ARC-AGI-20%—
SimpleBench27.7%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark55.9%—
NYT Connections (extended)8%—
ARC-AGI-14.4%—
CritPt0%—
EnigmaEval0.6%—
LiveBench Reasoning—42.1%
DTBench61.9%—
LiveBench Data Analysis—49.9%
LMCA15.9%—
ForecastBench57.5—
HellaSwag—83%
LiveBench—46.2%
WinoGrande—80.8%

Math Qwen2.5-Coder-32B leads

Llama 4 Maverick: 26.0 (#262), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.3 (#204)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 4 MaverickQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Math12991251
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202520.6%—
Omni-MATH42.2%—
LiveBench Math—46.6%
MATH Level 573%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)0.7%—
GSM8K—93%

Knowledge Too close to call

Llama 4 Maverick: 33.4 (#204), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.4 (#203)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 4 MaverickQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Expert12591221
GPQA Diamond67%—
Humanity's Last Exam5.7%—
MMLU-Pro81%—
Confabulations22.6%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate8.2%—
GPQA (HELM)65%—
ARC (AI2) Challenge—70.5%
MMLU—79.1%

Multimodal Not comparable

Llama 4 Maverick: 31.6 (#105), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: —

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 4 MaverickQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Vision1142—
GeoBench52%—
SpatialViz-Bench31.8%—

Multilingual Llama 4 Maverick leads

Llama 4 Maverick: 42.2 (#195), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 37.8 (#235)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 4 MaverickQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Non-English12691205
LMArena Chinese12771222
LMArena Russian12861228
LMArena French1259—
LMArena German1291—
LMArena Japanese1207—
LMArena Korean1203—
LMArena Spanish1293—

Instruction Following Llama 4 Maverick leads

Llama 4 Maverick: 71.7 (#146), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 61.4 (#245)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 4 MaverickQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Instruction Following12671223
LiveBench Instruction Following—58.7%
IFEval90.8%—

Long Context Qwen2.5-Coder-32B leads

Llama 4 Maverick: 31.4 (#279), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 38.0 (#208)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 4 MaverickQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Longer Query12801251
Fiction.LiveBench46.2%—

Writing & Preference Qwen2.5-Coder-32B leads

Llama 4 Maverick: 38.8 (#252), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 41.6 (#240)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 4 MaverickQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Text12871230
LMArena Creative Writing12671174
LMArena Multi-Turn12891222
Short-Story Creative Writing62%—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing860—
WildBench80%—
LiveBench Language—23.3%

Frequently asked questions

Is Llama 4 Maverick better than Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.4 to 30.9 on the Noometry Index. Llama 4 Maverick costs 2.5× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen2.5-Coder-32B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Llama 4 Maverick or Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?

Llama 4 Maverick is cheaper. It lists at $0.19 per million input tokens and $0.65 per million output tokens; Qwen2.5-Coder-32B lists at $0.66 and $1.

Is Llama 4 Maverick or Qwen2.5-Coder-32B better for coding?

Llama 4 Maverick scores higher on coding benchmarks: 26.6 versus 22.6 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Llama 4 Maverick does, with 128K tokens against 33K.

How many benchmarks do Llama 4 Maverick and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 4 Maverick has 54 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has 31.

Related comparisons

Go deeper