Model comparison
Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 vs Qwen3 32B
Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 and Qwen3 32B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (38.8 vs 39.2), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 scores higher in 2 categories and Qwen3 32B in 6 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads 25.9 to 20.2.
- Qwen3 32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 | Qwen3 32B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 38.8 | 39.2 |
| Released | — | 2025-04 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | 131K |
| Max output | — | 16K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.70 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $2.80 |
| Results tracked | 14 | 26 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Too close to call
Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 38.5 (#175), Qwen3 32B: 37.7 (#190)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1314 | 1358 |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 40% |
| SciCode | — | 35.4% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: —, Qwen3 32B: 32.6 (#62)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 48.7% |
Reasoning Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads
Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 25.9 (#141), Qwen3 32B: 20.2 (#241)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1299 | 1334 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 54.9% |
| CritPt | — | 0.3% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 5% |
| DTBench | — | 67.5% |
| LMCA | — | 17.3% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 138.51 |
Math Qwen3 32B leads
Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 36.1 (#174), Qwen3 32B: 39.7 (#99)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1298 | 1399 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 66.9% |
Knowledge Qwen3 32B leads
Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 35.5 (#183), Qwen3 32B: 40.0 (#125)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1289 | 1362 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 65.7% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 5.9% |
Multilingual Qwen3 32B leads
Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 41.9 (#201), Qwen3 32B: 45.6 (#167)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1265 | 1317 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1314 | 1357 |
| LMArena German | 1231 | 1341 |
| LMArena Russian | 1271 | 1311 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1207 | — |
Instruction Following Qwen3 32B leads
Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 67.2 (#199), Qwen3 32B: 68.9 (#179)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1275 | 1305 |
Long Context Qwen3 32B leads
Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 39.2 (#184), Qwen3 32B: 43.8 (#87)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1292 | 1327 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 74.2% |
Writing & Preference Qwen3 32B leads
Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 49.4 (#192), Qwen3 32B: 52.9 (#163)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1299 | 1340 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1262 | 1297 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1299 | 1331 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 better than Qwen3 32B?
Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 and Qwen3 32B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (38.8 vs 39.2), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Is Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 or Qwen3 32B better for coding?
They score almost the same on coding (38.5 vs 37.7); test both on your own repository before choosing.
How many benchmarks do Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 and Qwen3 32B share?
13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 has 14 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 32B has 26.