Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GPT-3.5 Turbo vs Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct

Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct leads GPT-3.5 Turbo on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 6.7 to 5.5, and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct costs 1.5x less per output token ($1.00 vs $1.50 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 5 benchmarks have a result for both.

GPT-3.5 TurboOpenAI
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$1.50
0
Qwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructQwen
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$1.00
5
vs boards won of 5 shared

GPT-3.5 Turbo or Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct: which to pick

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick GPT-3.5 Turbo for work measured by AA Intelligence Index or GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run), where it leads.

Shared results
5
GPT-3.5 Turbo only
8
Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct only
30
Like-for-like categories
4 of 9

Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.

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
GPT-3.5 Turbo not benchmarked, Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct not benchmarked.
Widest category
Math, 35.2 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
GSM8K: GPT-3.5 Turbo 57.8% against Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct 93.0%, 35.2 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GPT-3.5 Turbo $1.50 against Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct $1.00 per million output tokens, 1.5x apart.
Context window
GPT-3.5 Turbo takes 16K 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.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryGPT-3.5 TurboBarsQwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructTies
Intelligence01
Reasoning01
Math01
Knowledge02
All shared boards05
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index7 boards, none shared
Coding benchmarks for GPT-3.5 Turbo and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-3.5 TurboQwen2.5 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
AA Coding Index10.7Not measuredOnly GPT-3.5 Turbo 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
SciCode0.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-3.5 Turbo measured
Neither model has a result on the other 32 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for GPT-3.5 Turbo and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-3.5 TurboQwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructLeader
AA Intelligence Index5.56.7Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
Epoch Capabilities IndexNot measured119.5Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured
Agentic workNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for GPT-3.5 Turbo and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-3.5 TurboQwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructLeader
Neither model has a result on 41 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Reasoning benchmarks for GPT-3.5 Turbo and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-3.5 TurboQwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructLeader
GPQA Diamond30.6%Not measuredOnly GPT-3.5 Turbo measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)29.7%41.7%Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured3.5%Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured
BIG-Bench Hard61.6%Not measuredOnly GPT-3.5 Turbo 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
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Math benchmarks for GPT-3.5 Turbo and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-3.5 TurboQwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructLeader
GSM8K57.8%93.0%Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
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
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Knowledge benchmarks for GPT-3.5 Turbo and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-3.5 TurboQwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructLeader
LegalBench (Vals AI)64.4%Not measuredOnly GPT-3.5 Turbo measured
MedQA (Vals AI)58.5%Not measuredOnly GPT-3.5 Turbo measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)46.2%63.5%Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
MMLU68.5%79.1%Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
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 9 boards here
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for GPT-3.5 Turbo and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-3.5 TurboQwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructLeader
Neither model has a result on 9 boards here
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index15 boards, none shared
General benchmarks for GPT-3.5 Turbo and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-3.5 TurboQwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructLeader
DTBench48.5%Not measuredOnly GPT-3.5 Turbo measured
LMCA9.7%Not measuredOnly GPT-3.5 Turbo 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 31 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for GPT-3.5 Turbo and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-3.5 TurboQwen2.5 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

GPT-3.5 Turbo$0.0013Fits 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

GPT-3.5 Turbo$0.029Exceeds the context window
Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct$0.036Exceeds the context window

GPT-3.5 Turbo costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GPT-3.5 Turbo$0.115Exceeds the context window
Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct$0.142Exceeds the context window

GPT-3.5 Turbo 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 GPT-3.5 Turbo and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
SpecificationOpenAI GPT-3.5 TurboQwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
MakerOpenAIQwen
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedMay 28, 2023November 11, 2024
Context window16K33K
Input $/Mtok$0.50$0.66
Output $/Mtok$1.50$1.00
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it00
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GPT-3.5 Turbo better than Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick GPT-3.5 Turbo for work measured by AA Intelligence Index or GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run), where it leads.

Which is cheaper, GPT-3.5 Turbo or Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct?

GPT-3.5 Turbo costs $0.50 per million input tokens and $1.50 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, GPT-3.5 Turbo or Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct?

Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct, with 33K tokens against 16K.

How many benchmarks is the GPT-3.5 Turbo vs Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct comparison based on?

5 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. GPT-3.5 Turbo's coding index rests on 0 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