Compare / Qwen3-32B vs Nova Micro 1.0

Qwen3-32B vs Nova Micro 1.0

Which is cheaper, which is more capable, and which does better at each kind of work, from 23 results on 4 sources that measured both models.

AlibabaQwen3-32B Released 28 Apr 2025 · $0.14 in · $0.40 out
AmazonNova Micro 1.0 Released 3 Dec 2024 · $0.035 in · $0.14 out
Qwen3-32B wins 20Nova Micro 1.0 wins 3

Of the 23 results both models have, the better value on each. Results whose reported ranges overlap are too close to call.

Results as of 9 October 2026 (catalogue release 2026-10-09-dd620e778ac5). See also Alibaba vs Amazon, every model from both labs.

Qwen3-32B or Nova Micro 1.0? The short answer

Pick Qwen3-32B if quality matters most: it scores higher (Intelligence Index 8.6 against 5.9). Pick Nova Micro 1.0 if cost matters more: it costs 3.3 times less per token.

  • Nova Micro 1.0 is cheaper: $0.061 against $0.21 per million tokens, 3.3 times less.
  • Qwen3-32B scores higher on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index: 8.6 against 5.9.
  • Qwen3-32B is newer: released 28 Apr 2025, against 3 Dec 2024 for Nova Micro 1.0.
  • On third-party benchmarks, on the results both models have: Qwen3-32B does better for agents and tool use, reasoning and knowledge and writing; Nova Micro 1.0 for sticking to the facts.

Head to head

8.6
Intelligence Index
5.9
$0.21
Price per million tokens, blendedlower is better
$0.061
131,072
Context window, tokens
128,000

Every fact side by side

Qwen3-32BNova Micro 1.0
Price per million tokens$0.14 in · $0.40 out$0.035 in · $0.14 out
Blended (3 in : 1 out)$0.21$0.061
Cheapest host, blended$0.13 (DeepInfra, FP8)$0.061 (Amazon Bedrock)
Intelligence Index8.65.9
Spring Prompt overall––
Output speed, tokens a second–262
Context window131,072 tokens128,000 tokens
Released28 Apr 2025 (newer)3 Dec 2024
WeightsOpenClosed
Developer based inChinathe US

Prices are the developer's list price where we have read it, otherwise the typical host on OpenRouter; see every model's price. Intelligence and speed from Artificial Analysis.

Which is better for what

Each model's rank among the models on sale today, for each kind of work, from our own benchmarks and licensed sources. Further right is better; the better rank is in green.

Agents and tool useMulti-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls 113 of 164 159 of 164
Reasoning and knowledgeHard questions across science, maths and general knowledge 148 of 198 184 of 198
WritingWhat people prefer in blind comparisons, and judged writing quality 139 of 188 185 of 188
Sticking to the factsSummarising without inventing things, and factual answers 22 of 152 20 of 152

Every shared result

Each model's best result on every measure both have, grouped by benchmark, with the setting that produced it. Under each measure, every model that benchmark has measured is a grey tick, best to the right, so you can see where the two sit in the field. The headline measures of each benchmark come first; the rest are under "Show all". Green marks the better value; where a source reports ranges that overlap, neither is marked.

MeasureQwen3-32BNova Micro 1.0
Arena (formerly LMArena) reported by Arena (formerly LMArena) · 3 results
Overall · TextArena rating, higher is better 195 · 295 of 387 measured 1,347 1,241
Business, management and finance · TextArena rating, higher is better 203 · 292 of 380 measured 1,340 1,233
Creative writing · TextArena rating, higher is better 205 · 297 of 385 measured 1,304 1,198
Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 3 results
Artificial Analysis Intelligence Indexindex score, higher is better 188 · 231 of 243 measured 8.6thinking reasoning 5.9
GPQA Diamond% of questions, higher is better 167 · 222 of 231 measured 66.8%thinking reasoning 35.8%
Humanity's Last Exam% of questions, higher is better 168 · 198 of 242 measured 7.4%thinking reasoning 4.6%
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4 reported by Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4 · 3 results
Overall accuracy · BFCL% correct, higher is better 24 · 69 of 81 measured 48.7%bfcl fc 22.3%bfcl fc
Irrelevance detection · BFCL% correct, higher is better 37 · 61 of 81 measured 82.4%bfcl prompt 70.7%bfcl fc
Memory · BFCL% correct, higher is better 21 · 73 of 81 measured 26.7%bfcl fc 2.4%bfcl fc
Vectara Hallucination Leaderboard reported by Vectara Hallucination Leaderboard · 2 results
Hallucination rate · Vectara% of summaries, lower is better 24 · 18 of 104 measured 5.9% 5.5%
Answer rate · Vectara% of documents, higher is better 17 · 1 of 104 measured 99.9% 100.0%
Show all 23 results (12 more)
MeasureQwen3-32BNova Micro 1.0
Arena (formerly LMArena) reported by Arena (formerly LMArena) · 3 results
Expert prompts · TextArena rating, higher is better 159 · 278 of 338 measured 1,398 1,244
Instruction following · TextArena rating, higher is better 198 · 300 of 387 measured 1,331 1,215
Writing, literature and language · TextArena rating, higher is better 217 · 296 of 386 measured 1,308 1,223
Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 4 results
IFBench% of instructions, higher is better 155 · 184 of 195 measured 36.3%thinking reasoning 29.4%
Long-context reasoning (AA-LCR)% of questions, higher is better 222 · 213 of 233 measured 0.0%no reasoning 13.0%
Terminal-Bench Hard% of tasks, higher is better 169 · 175 of 190 measured 3.0%thinking reasoning 1.5%
τ²-bench telecom% of tasks, higher is better 135 · 180 of 193 measured 29.8%thinking reasoning 14.0%
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4 reported by Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4 · 5 results
Multi-turn tasks · BFCL% correct, higher is better 17 · 73 of 81 measured 47.9%bfcl fc 1.4%bfcl fc
Relevance detection · BFCL% correct, higher is better 8 · 36 of 81 measured 93.8%bfcl fc 81.3%bfcl fc
Single-turn calls (curated) · BFCL% correct, higher is better 3 · 65 of 81 measured 90.3%bfcl prompt 74.1%bfcl fc
Single-turn calls (user-contributed) · BFCL% correct, higher is better 3 · 59 of 81 measured 82.0%bfcl fc 66.3%bfcl fc
Web search · BFCL% correct, higher is better 28 · 53 of 81 measured 26.0%bfcl prompt 1.5%bfcl fc

Quick answers

Is Qwen3-32B better than Nova Micro 1.0?

Pick Qwen3-32B if quality matters most: it scores higher (Intelligence Index 8.6 against 5.9). Pick Nova Micro 1.0 if cost matters more: it costs 3.3 times less per token.

Which is cheaper, Qwen3-32B or Nova Micro 1.0?

Nova Micro 1.0 is cheaper: $0.061 against $0.21 per million tokens, 3.3 times less.

Which is better for agents and tool use, Qwen3-32B or Nova Micro 1.0?

Qwen3-32B ranks 113 of 164 models on sale for multi-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls, against 159 for Nova Micro 1.0.

Which is better for reasoning and knowledge, Qwen3-32B or Nova Micro 1.0?

Qwen3-32B ranks 148 of 198 models on sale for hard questions across science, maths and general knowledge, against 184 for Nova Micro 1.0.

Which is better for writing, Qwen3-32B or Nova Micro 1.0?

Qwen3-32B ranks 139 of 188 models on sale for what people prefer in blind comparisons, and judged writing quality, against 185 for Nova Micro 1.0.

Which is better for sticking to the facts, Qwen3-32B or Nova Micro 1.0?

Nova Micro 1.0 ranks 20 of 152 models on sale for summarising without inventing things, and factual answers, against 22 for Qwen3-32B.

Which has the bigger context window, Qwen3-32B or Nova Micro 1.0?

Qwen3-32B: 131,072 tokens, against 128,000 for Nova Micro 1.0.

Run Qwen3-32B and Nova Micro 1.0 on your own prompt

Benchmarks aren't your data. Try both side by side in the playground, with the cost of every answer.