Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Ember-1 vs Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct

Updated October 21, 2026. 0 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.

Ember-1Fireworks
Coding
52.6
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$15.00
Qwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructQwen
Coding
No data
Overall
6.7
Output $/M
$1.00
vs $15.00 vs $1.00 per 1M output tokens. Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct is 15.0x cheaper.

Decision reading

Only Ember-1 has a coding score, 52.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct has the edge where output tokens cost 15.0x less.

Shared results
0
Ember-1 only
14
Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct only
35
Like-for-like categories
0 of 9

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results only one model has describe coverage, not superiority.

Which one for your work

Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.

At a glance

Coding index
Ember-1 52.6 from 2 benchmarks, Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct not benchmarked.
Widest category
No category has a result for both models.
Widest single gap
No benchmark has a result for both models.
Output price
Ember-1 $15.00 against Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct $1.00 per million output tokens, 15.0x apart.
Context window
Ember-1 takes 1.05M tokens, Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct 33K.

Benchmark by benchmark

First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.

CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index10 boards, none shared
Coding benchmarks for Ember-1 and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
BenchmarkEmber-1Qwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructLeader
Aider polyglotNot measured16.4%Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured
SWE-bench VerifiedNot measured47.0%Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured
Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI)20.7%Not measuredOnly Ember-1 measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)83.9%Not measuredOnly Ember-1 measured
Code migration (Vals AI)32.5%Not measuredOnly Ember-1 measured
IOI (Vals AI)46.3%Not measuredOnly Ember-1 measured
CyberBench (Vals AI)69.5%Not measuredOnly Ember-1 measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured29.5%Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: codingNot measured1276Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: software and ITNot measured1261Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 28 boards here
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
Intelligence benchmarks for Ember-1 and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
BenchmarkEmber-1Qwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructLeader
AA Intelligence IndexNot measured6.7Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured
Epoch Capabilities IndexNot measured119.5Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index7 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for Ember-1 and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
BenchmarkEmber-1Qwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructLeader
Finance Agent (Vals AI)51.8%Not measuredOnly Ember-1 measured
Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI)31.1%Not measuredOnly Ember-1 measured
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)44.7%Not measuredOnly Ember-1 measured
Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI)63.4%Not measuredOnly Ember-1 measured
BioMysteryBench (Vals AI)67.0%Not measuredOnly Ember-1 measured
Terminal-Bench-Science (Vals AI)5.7%Not measuredOnly Ember-1 measured
Vals Science Index31.8%Not measuredOnly Ember-1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 32 boards here
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
Reasoning benchmarks for Ember-1 and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
BenchmarkEmber-1Qwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructLeader
MysteryMechanism (Vals AI)22.5%Not measuredOnly Ember-1 measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured41.7%Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured3.5%Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: hard promptsNot measured1251Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: expertNot measured1221Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in EnglishNot measured1269Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index3 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for Ember-1 and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
BenchmarkEmber-1Qwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructLeader
GSM8KNot measured93.0%Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: mathNot measured1251Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: mathematical workNot measured1243Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 10 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index7 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for Ember-1 and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
BenchmarkEmber-1Qwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructLeader
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured63.5%Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured
MMLUNot measured79.1%Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured
AI2 Reasoning ChallengeNot measured70.5%Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: scienceNot measured1221Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcareNot measured1187Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: legal and governmentNot measured1257Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: business and financeNot measured1224Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 10 boards here
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Ember-1 and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
BenchmarkEmber-1Qwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructLeader
Neither model has a result on 9 boards here
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index14 boards, none shared
General benchmarks for Ember-1 and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
BenchmarkEmber-1Qwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructLeader
Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI)66.2%Not measuredOnly Ember-1 measured
HellaSwagNot measured83.0%Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured
WinoGrandeNot measured80.8%Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured
LMArena TextNot measured1230Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: instruction followingNot measured1223Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: creative writingNot measured1174Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: EnglishNot measured1248Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: non-EnglishNot measured1205Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: ChineseNot measured1222Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: RussianNot measured1228Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: multi-turnNot measured1222Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: longer queriesNot measured1251Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: writing and languageNot measured1191Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and mediaNot measured1150Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 32 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Ember-1 and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
BenchmarkEmber-1Qwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructLeader
Neither model has a result on 5 boards here

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.

Chat turn

1K input + 500 output tokens

Ember-1$0.011Fits in one request
Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct$0.0012Fits in one request

Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Ember-1$0.195Fits in one request
Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct$0.036Exceeds the context window

Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Ember-1$0.750Fits in one request
Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct$0.142Exceeds the context window

Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct costs less

Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.

Specification differences

The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.

Specifications of Ember-1 and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
SpecificationFireworks Ember-1Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
MakerFireworksQwen
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedSeptember 24, 2026November 11, 2024
Context window1.05M33K
Input $/Mtok$3.00$0.66
Output $/Mtok$15.00$1.00
Coding index52.6Not benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it20
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Ember-1 better than Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct for coding?

Only Ember-1 has a coding score, 52.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct has the edge where output tokens cost 15.0x less.

Which is cheaper, Ember-1 or Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct?

Ember-1 costs $3.00 per million input tokens and $15.00 per million output tokens; Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct costs $0.66 and $1.00. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Ember-1 or Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct?

Ember-1, with 1.05M tokens against 33K.

How many benchmarks is the Ember-1 vs Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct comparison based on?

0 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Ember-1's coding index rests on 2 independent benchmarks and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next