LLMBenchmark.ai

Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

o3 vs Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct

Updated October 21, 2026. 30 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.

o3OpenAI
Coding
70.7
Overall
20.2
Output $/M
$8.00
30
Qwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructQwen
Coding
30.5
Overall
6.7
Output $/M
$1.00
0
vs boards won of 30 shared

Decision reading

Pick o3 for coding: it scores 70.7 on the Vibe Coding Index against 30.5 for Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct.

Pick Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct when output tokens cost 8.0x less.

Shared results
30
o3 only
67
Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct only
5
Like-for-like categories
6 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
o3 70.7 from 2 benchmarks, Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct 30.5 from 2 benchmarks.
Widest category
Coding, 35.0 points apart on average over 5 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
Aider polyglot: o3 81.3% against Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct 16.4%, 64.9 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
o3 $8.00 against Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct $1.00 per million output tokens, 8.0x apart.
Context window
o3 takes 200K 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
Categoryo3BarsQwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructTies
Coding50
Intelligence20
Reasoning50
Math20
Knowledge50
General110
All shared boards300
CodingLike-for-likeFour of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index50
Coding benchmarks for o3 and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
Benchmarko3Qwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructLeader
Aider polyglot81.3%16.4%o3
SWE-bench Verified58.4%47.0%o3
SWE-bench Multimodal36.0%Not measuredOnly o3 measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)83.9%Not measuredOnly o3 measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)80.8%29.5%o3
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)37.1%Not measuredOnly o3 measured
GSO-Bench8.8%Not measuredOnly o3 measured
WeirdML52.4%Not measuredOnly o3 measured
ALE-Bench933.5Not measuredOnly o3 measured
LMArena Text: coding14071276o3
LMArena Text: software and IT14151261o3
Neither model has a result on the other 27 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
Intelligence benchmarks for o3 and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
Benchmarko3Qwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructLeader
AA Intelligence Index20.26.7o3
Epoch Capabilities Index146.7119.5o3
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for o3 and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
Benchmarko3Qwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructLeader
τ²-Bench Telecom80.7%Not measuredOnly o3 measured
METR time horizons65.4%Not measuredOnly o3 measured
GDPval30.8%Not measuredOnly o3 measured
DeepResearch Bench45.2%Not measuredOnly o3 measured
OSWorld23.0%Not measuredOnly o3 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 34 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index50
Reasoning benchmarks for o3 and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
Benchmarko3Qwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructLeader
GPQA Diamond84.1%Not measuredOnly o3 measured
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)80.4%Not measuredOnly o3 measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)82.7%41.7%o3
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)20.1%3.5%o3
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)81.8%Not measuredOnly o3 measured
ARC-AGI60.8%Not measuredOnly o3 measured
ARC-AGI-26.5%Not measuredOnly o3 measured
SimpleBench53.1%Not measuredOnly o3 measured
Chess puzzles37.0%Not measuredOnly o3 measured
Mystery game puzzles29.0%Not measuredOnly o3 measured
VPCT52.0%Not measuredOnly o3 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts14021251o3
LMArena Text: expert14021221o3
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English14111269o3
LMArena Vision: diagrams1220Not measuredOnly o3 measured
LMArena Vision: homework1234Not measuredOnly o3 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 5 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
Math benchmarks for o3 and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
Benchmarko3Qwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructLeader
AIME85.3%Not measuredOnly o3 measured
MATH 500 (Vals AI)94.6%Not measuredOnly o3 measured
MGSM (Vals AI)91.8%Not measuredOnly o3 measured
AA Math Index88.3Not measuredOnly o3 measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)88.3%Not measuredOnly o3 measured
OTIS Mock AIME84.4%Not measuredOnly o3 measured
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 333.3%Not measuredOnly o3 measured
MATH level 597.8%Not measuredOnly o3 measured
GSM8KNot measured93.0%Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: math14261251o3
LMArena Text: mathematical work14231243o3
Neither model has a result on the other 2 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index50
Knowledge benchmarks for o3 and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
Benchmarko3Qwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructLeader
MMLU Pro85.6%Not measuredOnly o3 measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)83.8%Not measuredOnly o3 measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)59.7%Not measuredOnly o3 measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)74.6%Not measuredOnly o3 measured
MortgageTax (Vals AI)65.7%Not measuredOnly o3 measured
MedQA (Vals AI)96.1%Not measuredOnly o3 measured
MedCode (Vals AI)47.3%Not measuredOnly o3 measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)85.3%63.5%o3
SimpleQA Verified49.4%Not measuredOnly o3 measured
MMLUNot measured79.1%Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured
GeoBench74.0%Not measuredOnly o3 measured
AI2 Reasoning ChallengeNot measured70.5%Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: science14291221o3
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare14481187o3
LMArena Text: legal and government14281257o3
LMArena Text: business and finance13931224o3
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for o3 and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
Benchmarko3Qwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructLeader
Design Arena: websites1036Not measuredOnly o3 measured
Design Arena: UI components1016Not measuredOnly o3 measured
Design Arena: game dev1034Not measuredOnly o3 measured
Design Arena: data viz1200Not measuredOnly o3 measured
Design Arena: all code categories1021Not measuredOnly o3 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 4 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index110
General benchmarks for o3 and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
Benchmarko3Qwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructLeader
SAGE (Vals AI)41.8%Not measuredOnly o3 measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)76.7%Not measuredOnly o3 measured
IFBench71.4%Not measuredOnly o3 measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)74.7%Not measuredOnly o3 measured
DTBench84.8%Not measuredOnly o3 measured
LMCA39.7%Not measuredOnly o3 measured
Fiction.LiveBench88.9%Not measuredOnly o3 measured
Creative writing (Lech Mazur)83.9%Not measuredOnly o3 measured
CL-bench17.8%Not measuredOnly o3 measured
HellaSwagNot measured83.0%Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured
WinoGrandeNot measured80.8%Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured
LMArena Text14101230o3
LMArena Text: instruction following13681223o3
LMArena Text: creative writing13591174o3
LMArena Vision1214Not measuredOnly o3 measured
LMArena Text: English14171248o3
LMArena Text: non-English14011205o3
LMArena Text: Chinese14371222o3
LMArena Text: German1420Not measuredOnly o3 measured
LMArena Text: Japanese1403Not measuredOnly o3 measured
LMArena Text: Korean1370Not measuredOnly o3 measured
LMArena Text: French1430Not measuredOnly o3 measured
LMArena Text: Spanish1395Not measuredOnly o3 measured
LMArena Text: Russian14061228o3
LMArena Text: Polish1438Not measuredOnly o3 measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn14051222o3
LMArena Text: longer queries13721251o3
LMArena Text: writing and language13721191o3
LMArena Text: entertainment and media13731150o3
LMArena Vision: English1221Not measuredOnly o3 measured
LMArena Vision: Chinese1237Not measuredOnly o3 measured
LMArena Vision: reading text1218Not measuredOnly o3 measured
LMArena Vision: humor1222Not measuredOnly o3 measured
LMArena Vision: captioning1210Not measuredOnly o3 measured
LMArena Vision: recognizing things1234Not measuredOnly o3 measured
LMArena Vision: creative writing1201Not measuredOnly o3 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 10 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for o3 and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
Benchmarko3Qwen2.5 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

o3$0.0060Fits 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

o3$0.124Fits 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

o3$0.480Exceeds the context window
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 o3 and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
SpecificationOpenAI o3Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
MakerOpenAIQwen
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedApril 16, 2025November 11, 2024
Context window200K33K
Input $/Mtok$2.00$0.66
Output $/Mtok$8.00$1.00
Coding index70.730.5
Independent measurements behind it22
Cost per solved task$0.571Not computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is o3 better than Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct for coding?

Pick o3 for coding: it scores 70.7 on the Vibe Coding Index against 30.5 for Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct. Pick Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct when output tokens cost 8.0x less.

Which is cheaper, o3 or Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct?

o3 costs $2.00 per million input tokens and $8.00 per million output tokens; Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct costs $0.66 and $1.00. Cost per solved task is known for o3 only.

Which has the bigger context window, o3 or Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct?

o3, with 200K tokens against 33K.

How many benchmarks is the o3 vs Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct comparison based on?

30 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. o3's coding index rests on 2 independent benchmarks and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct's on 2. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next

Embed this comparison on your site

Free under CC BY 4.0, while the source link stays visible. Preview the frame · Terms and other embeds

<iframe src="https://llmbenchmark.ai/embed/compare/o3-vs-qwen-2-5-coder-32b-instruct" title="o3 vs Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct, LLMBenchmark.ai" width="100%" height="360" style="border:0;max-width:100%" loading="lazy"></iframe>
<p style="font:13px/1.4 sans-serif;margin:6px 0 0">Source: <a href="https://llmbenchmark.ai/compare/o3-vs-qwen-2-5-coder-32b-instruct">LLMBenchmark.ai, o3 vs Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct</a></p>