Noometry

Model comparison

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B vs QwQ-32B

QwQ-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.4 to 32.9 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 23 shared benchmarks.

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

32.9

Rank #239 Confirmed

QwQ-32B Alibaba (Qwen)

39.4

Rank #153 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 23 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen2.5-Coder-32B scores higher in 0 categories and QwQ-32B in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in coding, where QwQ-32B leads 34.9 to 22.4.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is LiveBench Reasoning: 42.1% for Qwen2.5-Coder-32B and 83.5% for QwQ-32B.

Side by side

Qwen2.5-Coder-32BQwQ-32B
ProviderAlibaba (Qwen)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index32.939.4
Released2024-09-182024-11-28
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window33K—
Max output29K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.66—
Output $ / M tokens$1—
Results tracked3136

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

Category by category

Coding QwQ-32B leads

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 22.4 (#328), QwQ-32B: 34.9 (#220)

BenchmarkQwen2.5-Coder-32BQwQ-32B
Aider Polyglot16.4%20.9%
BigCodeBench Instruct49%44.6%
LiveBench Coding56.9%72.2%
LMArena Coding12761333
BigCodeBench Complete58%54.4%
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)9%—
HumanEval+87.2%—
MBPP+77%—

Reasoning QwQ-32B leads

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 20.4 (#220), QwQ-32B: 22.9 (#171)

BenchmarkQwen2.5-Coder-32BQwQ-32B
LiveBench Reasoning42.1%83.5%
LMArena Hard Prompts12511326
LiveBench Data Analysis49.9%65%
Epoch Capabilities Index119.41137.6
LiveBench46.2%72%
Chess Puzzles—5%
ForecastBench—58.3
HellaSwag83%—
WinoGrande80.8%—

Math QwQ-32B leads

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 30.8 (#203), QwQ-32B: 36.2 (#123)

BenchmarkQwen2.5-Coder-32BQwQ-32B
LiveBench Math46.6%77.8%
LMArena Math12511359
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—59.2%
GSM8K93%—

Knowledge QwQ-32B leads

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 32.9 (#200), QwQ-32B: 37.2 (#150)

BenchmarkQwen2.5-Coder-32BQwQ-32B
LMArena Expert12211323
GPQA Diamond—65.3%
Confabulations—15.6%
ARC (AI2) Challenge70.5%—
MMLU79.1%—

Multilingual QwQ-32B leads

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 38.0 (#230), QwQ-32B: 45.0 (#171)

BenchmarkQwen2.5-Coder-32BQwQ-32B
LMArena Non-English12051306
LMArena Chinese12221378
LMArena Russian12281297
LMArena French—1337
LMArena German—1313
LMArena Japanese—1263
LMArena Korean—1278
LMArena Spanish—1353

Instruction Following QwQ-32B leads

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 61.6 (#240), QwQ-32B: 72.8 (#131)

BenchmarkQwen2.5-Coder-32BQwQ-32B
LiveBench Instruction Following58.7%81.8%
LMArena Instruction Following12231297

Long Context QwQ-32B leads

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 37.9 (#204), QwQ-32B: 49.0 (#11)

BenchmarkQwen2.5-Coder-32BQwQ-32B
LMArena Longer Query12511308
Fiction.LiveBench—83.3%

Writing & Preference QwQ-32B leads

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 41.8 (#235), QwQ-32B: 50.9 (#175)

BenchmarkQwen2.5-Coder-32BQwQ-32B
LMArena Text12301329
LMArena Creative Writing11741288
LMArena Multi-Turn12221314
LiveBench Language23.3%51.4%
Short-Story Creative Writing—80.2%
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—1257

Frequently asked questions

Is Qwen2.5-Coder-32B better than QwQ-32B?

QwQ-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.4 to 32.9 on the Noometry Index.

Is Qwen2.5-Coder-32B or QwQ-32B better for coding?

QwQ-32B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 34.9 versus 22.4 in the Noometry coding category.

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

23 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has 31 scored results on Noometry and QwQ-32B has 36.

Related comparisons

Go deeper