Model comparison

o1-pro vs Qwen2.5-Coder-32B

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.4 to 31.5 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.

o1-pro OpenAI

31.5

Rank #271 Reported

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

33.4

Rank #245 Confirmed

Summary

  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen2.5-Coder-32B leads 33.4 to 29.7.
  • Qwen2.5-Coder-32B is cheaper at $0.66 / $1 per million input/output tokens, against $150 / $600 for o1-pro.
  • o1-pro accepts more context: 200K tokens versus 33K.
  • Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

o1-pro and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B specifications
o1-proQwen2.5-Coder-32B
ProviderOpenAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index31.533.4
Released2025-03-192024-09-18
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window200K33K
Max output100K29K
Input $ / M tokens$150$0.66
Output $ / M tokens$600$1
Results tracked331

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

o1-pro: —, Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 22.6 (#333)

Coding benchmarks
Benchmarko1-proQwen2.5-Coder-32B
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)—9%
Aider Polyglot—16.4%
BigCodeBench Instruct—49%
LiveBench Coding—56.9%
LMArena Coding—1276
BigCodeBench Complete—58%
HumanEval+—87.2%
MBPP+—77%

Reasoning Too close to call

o1-pro: 20.4 (#239), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 21.2 (#225)

Reasoning benchmarks
Benchmarko1-proQwen2.5-Coder-32B
ARC-AGI-123.3%—
EnigmaEval6.1%—
LiveBench Reasoning—42.1%
LMArena Hard Prompts—1251
LiveBench Data Analysis—49.9%
Epoch Capabilities Index—119.49
HellaSwag—83%
LiveBench—46.2%
WinoGrande—80.8%

Math Not comparable

o1-pro: —, Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.3 (#204)

Math benchmarks
Benchmarko1-proQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LiveBench Math—46.6%
LMArena Math—1251
GSM8K—93%

Knowledge Qwen2.5-Coder-32B leads

o1-pro: 29.7 (#234), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.4 (#203)

Knowledge benchmarks
Benchmarko1-proQwen2.5-Coder-32B
Humanity's Last Exam8.1%—
LMArena Expert—1221
ARC (AI2) Challenge—70.5%
MMLU—79.1%

Multilingual Not comparable

o1-pro: —, Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 37.8 (#235)

Multilingual benchmarks
Benchmarko1-proQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Non-English—1205
LMArena Chinese—1222
LMArena Russian—1228

Instruction Following Not comparable

o1-pro: —, Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 61.4 (#245)

Instruction Following benchmarks
Benchmarko1-proQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LiveBench Instruction Following—58.7%
LMArena Instruction Following—1223

Long Context Not comparable

o1-pro: —, Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 38.0 (#208)

Long Context benchmarks
Benchmarko1-proQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Longer Query—1251

Writing & Preference Not comparable

o1-pro: —, Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 41.6 (#240)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
Benchmarko1-proQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Text—1230
LMArena Creative Writing—1174
LMArena Multi-Turn—1222
LiveBench Language—23.3%

Frequently asked questions

Is o1-pro better than Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.4 to 31.5 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, o1-pro 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; o1-pro lists at $150 and $600.

Which has the bigger context window?

o1-pro does, with 200K tokens against 33K.

How many benchmarks do o1-pro and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. o1-pro has 3 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has 31.

Related comparisons

Go deeper