Model comparison

Qwen3 32B vs Qwen3 Coder Next

Qwen3 32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.2 to 34.3 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3 Coder Next costs 4.2× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3 32B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.

Qwen3 32B Alibaba (Qwen)

39.2

Rank #172 Confirmed

Qwen3 Coder Next Alibaba (Qwen)

34.3

Rank #232 Reported

Summary

  • They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen3 32B scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3 Coder Next in 1 category; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • Qwen3 Coder Next is cheaper at $0.12 / $0.80 per million input/output tokens, against $0.70 / $2.80 for Qwen3 32B.
  • Qwen3 Coder Next accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 131K.

Side by side

Qwen3 32B and Qwen3 Coder Next specifications
Qwen3 32BQwen3 Coder Next
ProviderAlibaba (Qwen)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index39.234.3
Released2025-042026-02-02
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window131K262K
Max output16K66K
Input $ / M tokens$0.70$0.12
Output $ / M tokens$2.80$0.80
Results tracked263

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3 32B leads

Qwen3 32B: 37.7 (#190), Qwen3 Coder Next: 36.3 (#210)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen3 32BQwen3 Coder Next
SciCode35.4%32.3%
Aider Polyglot40%—
WeirdML—34.4%
LMArena Coding1358—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Qwen3 32B: 32.6 (#62), Qwen3 Coder Next: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen3 32BQwen3 Coder Next
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard48.7%—

Reasoning Qwen3 Coder Next leads

Qwen3 32B: 20.2 (#241), Qwen3 Coder Next: 22.4 (#196)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen3 32BQwen3 Coder Next
CritPt0.3%0%
Kagi LLM Benchmark54.9%—
Chess Puzzles5%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1334—
DTBench67.5%—
LMCA17.3%—
Epoch Capabilities Index138.51—

Math Not comparable

Qwen3 32B: 39.7 (#99), Qwen3 Coder Next: —

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen3 32BQwen3 Coder Next
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202566.9%—
LMArena Math1399—

Knowledge Not comparable

Qwen3 32B: 40.0 (#125), Qwen3 Coder Next: —

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen3 32BQwen3 Coder Next
GPQA Diamond65.7%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate5.9%—
LMArena Expert1362—

Multilingual Not comparable

Qwen3 32B: 45.6 (#167), Qwen3 Coder Next: —

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen3 32BQwen3 Coder Next
LMArena Non-English1317—
LMArena Chinese1357—
LMArena German1341—
LMArena Russian1311—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Qwen3 32B: 68.9 (#179), Qwen3 Coder Next: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen3 32BQwen3 Coder Next
LMArena Instruction Following1305—

Long Context Not comparable

Qwen3 32B: 43.8 (#87), Qwen3 Coder Next: —

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen3 32BQwen3 Coder Next
Fiction.LiveBench74.2%—
LMArena Longer Query1327—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Qwen3 32B: 52.9 (#163), Qwen3 Coder Next: —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen3 32BQwen3 Coder Next
LMArena Text1340—
LMArena Creative Writing1297—
LMArena Multi-Turn1331—

Frequently asked questions

Is Qwen3 32B better than Qwen3 Coder Next?

Qwen3 32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.2 to 34.3 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3 Coder Next costs 4.2× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3 32B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Qwen3 32B or Qwen3 Coder Next?

Qwen3 Coder Next is cheaper. It lists at $0.12 per million input tokens and $0.80 per million output tokens; Qwen3 32B lists at $0.70 and $2.80.

Is Qwen3 32B or Qwen3 Coder Next better for coding?

Qwen3 32B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.7 versus 36.3 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3 Coder Next does, with 262K tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks do Qwen3 32B and Qwen3 Coder Next share?

2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen3 32B has 26 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 Coder Next has 3.

Related comparisons

Go deeper