Qwen3 32B vs Qwen3 Coder Next
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.
Decision reading
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Qwen3 32B has the edge where output tokens cost 2.0x less, and where what matters is SciCode or Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run), where it leads.
- Shared results
- 8
- Qwen3 32B only
- 34
- Qwen3 Coder Next only
- 3
- 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.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
No call
Neither has a coding score yet.
One side not measured
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
Qwen3 Coder Next
Qwen3 Coder Next leads, 9.2 against 7.3.
Same board, both measured
Agentic work
AA Agentic Index
No call
Only Qwen3 Coder Next has a AA Agentic Index result, 0.9.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
Qwen3 Coder Next
Qwen3 Coder Next takes 262K tokens against 131K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Qwen3 32B
Qwen3 32B $0.0003, Qwen3 Coder Next $0.0005 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Qwen3 32B not benchmarked, Qwen3 Coder Next not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- Agentic work, 49.7 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
- Widest single gap
- τ²-Bench Telecom: Qwen3 32B 29.8% against Qwen3 Coder Next 79.5%, 49.7 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Qwen3 32B $0.40 against Qwen3 Coder Next $0.80 per million output tokens, 2.0x apart.
- Context window
- Qwen3 32B takes 131K tokens, Qwen3 Coder Next 262K.
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.
| Category | Qwen3 32B | Bars | Qwen3 Coder Next | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 0 | 2 | ||
| Intelligence | 0 | 1 | ||
| Agentic work | 0 | 1 | ||
| Reasoning | 0 | 2 | ||
| General | 1 | 1 | ||
| All shared boards | 1 | 7 |
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index02
| Benchmark | Qwen3 32B | Qwen3 Coder Next | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aider polyglot | 40.0% | Not measured | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| AA Coding Index | Not measured | 36.2 | Only Qwen3 Coder Next measured |
| LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) | 54.6% | Not measured | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| SciCode | 36.0% | 36.2% | Qwen3 Coder Next |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | 3.0% | 18.2% | Qwen3 Coder Next |
| WeirdML | Not measured | 34.4% | Only Qwen3 Coder Next measured |
| LMArena Text: coding | 1357 | Not measured | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| LMArena Text: software and IT | 1366 | Not measured | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 30 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | Qwen3 32B | Qwen3 Coder Next | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 7.3 | 9.2 | Qwen3 Coder Next |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 138.4 | Not measured | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | Qwen3 32B | Qwen3 Coder Next | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic Index | Not measured | 0.9 | Only Qwen3 Coder Next measured |
| τ²-Bench Telecom | 29.8% | 79.5% | Qwen3 Coder Next |
| Neither model has a result on the other 37 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
| Benchmark | Qwen3 32B | Qwen3 Coder Next | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 66.8% | 73.7% | Qwen3 Coder Next |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 7.4% | 10.1% | Qwen3 Coder Next |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | 65.7% | Not measured | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts | 1334 | Not measured | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| LMArena Text: expert | 1362 | Not measured | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts in English | 1350 | Not measured | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here | |||
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Qwen3 32B | Qwen3 Coder Next | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Math Index | 73.0 | Not measured | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run) | 73.0% | Not measured | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| OTIS Mock AIME | 66.9% | Not measured | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| LMArena Text: math | 1399 | Not measured | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| LMArena Text: mathematical work | 1420 | Not measured | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here | |||
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Qwen3 32B | Qwen3 Coder Next | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run) | 79.8% | Not measured | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| LMArena Text: science | 1372 | Not measured | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare | 1368 | Not measured | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| LMArena Text: legal and government | 1324 | Not measured | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| LMArena Text: business and finance | 1318 | Not measured | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 12 boards here | |||
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Qwen3 32B | Qwen3 Coder Next | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 9 boards here | |||
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index11
| Benchmark | Qwen3 32B | Qwen3 Coder Next | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFBench | 36.3% | 35.2% | Qwen3 32B |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 0.0% | 47.0% | Qwen3 Coder Next |
| DTBench | 67.5% | Not measured | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| LMCA | 17.3% | Not measured | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 74.2% | Not measured | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| LMArena Text | 1340 | Not measured | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| LMArena Text: instruction following | 1305 | Not measured | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| LMArena Text: creative writing | 1297 | Not measured | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| LMArena Text: English | 1359 | Not measured | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| LMArena Text: non-English | 1317 | Not measured | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| LMArena Text: Chinese | 1357 | Not measured | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| LMArena Text: German | 1341 | Not measured | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| LMArena Text: Russian | 1311 | Not measured | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| LMArena Text: multi-turn | 1331 | Not measured | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| LMArena Text: longer queries | 1327 | Not measured | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| LMArena Text: writing and language | 1298 | Not measured | Only Qwen3 32B measured |
| LMArena Text: entertainment and media | 1279 | Not measured | Only Qwen3 32B 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
| Benchmark | Qwen3 32B | Qwen3 Coder Next | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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
Qwen3 32B costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Qwen3 32B costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Same cost
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.
| Specification | Qwen3 32B | Qwen3 Coder Next |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Qwen | Qwen |
| Weights | Open weights | Open weights |
| Released | April 28, 2025 | February 4, 2026 |
| Context window | 131K | 262K |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.14 | $0.12 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.40 | $0.80 |
| Coding index | Not benchmarked | Not benchmarked |
| Independent measurements behind it | 0 | 0 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is Qwen3 32B better than Qwen3 Coder Next for coding?
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Qwen3 32B has the edge where output tokens cost 2.0x less, and where what matters is SciCode or Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run), where it leads.
Which is cheaper, Qwen3 32B or Qwen3 Coder Next?
Qwen3 32B costs $0.14 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Qwen3 Coder Next costs $0.12 and $0.80. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, Qwen3 32B or Qwen3 Coder Next?
Qwen3 Coder Next, with 262K tokens against 131K.
How many benchmarks is the Qwen3 32B vs Qwen3 Coder Next comparison based on?
8 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Qwen3 32B's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Qwen3 Coder Next's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.