Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GPT-4o-mini vs Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct

Updated October 21, 2026. 8 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.

GPT-4o-miniOpenAI
Coding
No data
Overall
6.7
Output $/M
$0.60
5
Qwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructQwen
Coding
No data
Overall
6.7
Output $/M
$1.00
2
vs boards won of 8 shared, 1 tied

Decision reading

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

GPT-4o-mini has the edge where output tokens cost 1.7x less, and where the context window is larger, 128K against 33K tokens.

Shared results
8
GPT-4o-mini only
19
Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct only
27
Like-for-like categories
5 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
GPT-4o-mini not benchmarked, Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct not benchmarked.
Widest category
Coding, 6.1 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
Epoch Capabilities Index: GPT-4o-mini 126.5 against Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct 119.5, 8.8 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GPT-4o-mini $0.60 against Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct $1.00 per million output tokens, 1.7x apart.
Context window
GPT-4o-mini takes 128K 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-4o-miniBarsQwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructTies
Coding01
Intelligence101 tie
Reasoning20
Math01
Knowledge20
All shared boards521 tie
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index01
Coding benchmarks for GPT-4o-mini and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-4o-miniQwen2.5 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 Index11.4Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)26.4%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)23.4%29.5%Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
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 31 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Intelligence benchmarks for GPT-4o-mini and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-4o-miniQwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructLeader
AA Intelligence Index6.76.7Tie
Epoch Capabilities Index126.5119.5GPT-4o-mini
Agentic workNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for GPT-4o-mini and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-4o-miniQwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructLeader
Neither model has a result on 39 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
Reasoning benchmarks for GPT-4o-mini and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-4o-miniQwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructLeader
GPQA Diamond44.2%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)56.6%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)42.6%41.7%GPT-4o-mini
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)4.2%3.5%GPT-4o-mini
ARC-AGI-20.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini 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 13 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Math benchmarks for GPT-4o-mini and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-4o-miniQwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructLeader
AIME11.5%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
MATH 500 (Vals AI)72.6%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
MGSM (Vals AI)86.2%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
AA Math Index14.7Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)14.7%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
GSM8K91.3%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 5 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
Knowledge benchmarks for GPT-4o-mini and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-4o-miniQwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructLeader
MMLU Pro62.7%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)45.5%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)60.5%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
MortgageTax (Vals AI)54.5%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
MedQA (Vals AI)72.4%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)64.8%63.5%GPT-4o-mini
MMLU81.8%79.1%GPT-4o-mini
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 5 boards here
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for GPT-4o-mini and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-4o-miniQwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructLeader
Neither model has a result on 9 boards here
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index17 boards, none shared
General benchmarks for GPT-4o-mini and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-4o-miniQwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructLeader
IFBench31.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
DTBench54.4%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
LMCA10.4%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
HellaSwagNot measured83.0%Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured
WinoGrandeNot measured80.8%Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured
PIQA88.7%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini 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 29 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for GPT-4o-mini and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-4o-miniQwen2.5 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-4o-mini$0.0004Fits in one request
Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct$0.0012Fits in one request

GPT-4o-mini costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GPT-4o-mini$0.0093Fits in one request
Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct$0.036Exceeds the context window

GPT-4o-mini costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GPT-4o-mini$0.036Exceeds the context window
Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct$0.142Exceeds the context window

GPT-4o-mini 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-4o-mini and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
SpecificationOpenAI GPT-4o-miniQwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
MakerOpenAIQwen
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedJuly 18, 2024November 11, 2024
Context window128K33K
Input $/Mtok$0.15$0.66
Output $/Mtok$0.60$1.00
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it00
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GPT-4o-mini better than Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. GPT-4o-mini has the edge where output tokens cost 1.7x less, and where the context window is larger, 128K against 33K tokens.

Which is cheaper, GPT-4o-mini or Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct?

GPT-4o-mini costs $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.60 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-4o-mini or Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct?

GPT-4o-mini, with 128K tokens against 33K.

How many benchmarks is the GPT-4o-mini vs Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct comparison based on?

8 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. GPT-4o-mini'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