Compare / Qwen3-32B vs o3

Qwen3-32B vs o3

Which is cheaper, which is more capable, and which does better at each kind of work, from 24 results on 4 sources that measured both models.

AlibabaQwen3-32B Released 28 Apr 2025 · $0.14 in · $0.40 out
OpenAIo3 Released 16 Apr 2025 · $2.00 in · $8.00 out
Qwen3-32B wins 31 too close to callo3 wins 20

Of the 24 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 OpenAI, every model from both labs.

Qwen3-32B or o3? The short answer

Pick o3 if quality matters most: it scores higher (Intelligence Index 20.2 against 8.6). Pick Qwen3-32B if cost matters more: it costs 17 times less per token.

  • Qwen3-32B is cheaper: $0.21 against $3.50 per million tokens, 17 times less.
  • o3 scores higher on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index: 20.2 against 8.6.
  • Qwen3-32B is newer: released 28 Apr 2025, against 16 Apr 2025 for o3.
  • On third-party benchmarks, on the results both models have: o3 does better for agents and tool use, reasoning and knowledge and writing.

Head to head

8.6
Intelligence Index
20.2
$0.21
Price per million tokens, blendedlower is better
$3.50
131,072
Context window, tokens
200,000

Every fact side by side

Qwen3-32Bo3
Price per million tokens$0.14 in · $0.40 out$2.00 in · $8.00 out
Blended (3 in : 1 out)$0.21$3.50
Cheapest host, blended$0.13 (DeepInfra, FP8)–
Intelligence Index8.620.2
Spring Prompt overall––
Output speed, tokens a second–123
Context window131,072 tokens200,000 tokens
Released28 Apr 2025 (newer)16 Apr 2025
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 13 of 164
Reasoning and knowledgeHard questions across science, maths and general knowledge 148 of 198 99 of 198
WritingWhat people prefer in blind comparisons, and judged writing quality 139 of 188 50 of 188
Sticking to the factsSummarising without inventing things, and factual answers 22 of 152 91 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.

MeasureQwen3-32Bo3
Arena (formerly LMArena) reported by Arena (formerly LMArena) · 3 results
Overall · TextArena rating, higher is better 195 · 95 of 387 measured 1,347 1,432
Business, management and finance · TextArena rating, higher is better 203 · 99 of 380 measured 1,340 1,427
Creative writing · TextArena rating, higher is better 205 · 116 of 385 measured 1,304 1,383
Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 3 results
Artificial Analysis Intelligence Indexindex score, higher is better 188 · 107 of 243 measured 8.6thinking reasoning 20.2
GPQA Diamond% of questions, higher is better 167 · 98 of 231 measured 66.8%thinking reasoning 82.7%
Humanity's Last Exam% of questions, higher is better 168 · 109 of 242 measured 7.4%thinking reasoning 20.1%
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4 reported by Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4 · 3 results
Overall accuracy · BFCL% correct, higher is better 24 · 7 of 81 measured 48.7%bfcl fc 63.1%bfcl prompt
Irrelevance detection · BFCL% correct, higher is better 37 · 25 of 81 measured 82.4%bfcl prompt 86.1%bfcl fc
Memory · BFCL% correct, higher is better 21 · 9 of 81 measured 26.7%bfcl fc 51.8%bfcl prompt
UGI Leaderboard reported by UGI Leaderboard · 3 results
Writing score · UGIscore out of 100, higher is better 134 · 24 of 230 measured 33.0no reasoning 66.8medium reasoning
Requested-length error · UGI% off the requested word count, lower is better 99 · 91 of 230 measured 19.0%no reasoning 18.0%high reasoning
Style adherence · UGIscore from 0 to 1, higher is better 175 · 198 of 230 measured 0.32no reasoning 0.31high reasoning
Show all 24 results (12 more)
MeasureQwen3-32Bo3
Arena (formerly LMArena) reported by Arena (formerly LMArena) · 3 results
Expert prompts · TextArena rating, higher is better 159 · 101 of 338 measured 1,398 1,449
Instruction following · TextArena rating, higher is better 198 · 120 of 387 measured 1,331 1,403
Writing, literature and language · TextArena rating, higher is better 217 · 114 of 386 measured 1,308 1,396
Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 4 results
IFBench% of instructions, higher is better 155 · 46 of 195 measured 36.3%thinking reasoning 71.4%
Long-context reasoning (AA-LCR)% of questions, higher is better 222 · 79 of 233 measured 0.0%no reasoning 74.7%
Terminal-Bench Hard% of tasks, higher is better 169 · 44 of 190 measured 3.0%thinking reasoning 37.1%
τ²-bench telecom% of tasks, higher is better 135 · 69 of 193 measured 29.8%thinking reasoning 80.7%
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 · 8 of 81 measured 47.9%bfcl fc 62.3%bfcl prompt
Relevance detection · BFCL% correct, higher is better 8 · 8 of 81 measured 93.8%bfcl fc 93.8%bfcl prompt
Single-turn calls (curated) · BFCL% correct, higher is better 3 · 52 of 81 measured 90.3%bfcl prompt 81.9%bfcl prompt
Single-turn calls (user-contributed) · BFCL% correct, higher is better 3 · 40 of 81 measured 82.0%bfcl fc 73.2%bfcl prompt
Web search · BFCL% correct, higher is better 28 · 9 of 81 measured 26.0%bfcl prompt 77.0%bfcl fc

Quick answers

Is Qwen3-32B better than o3?

Pick o3 if quality matters most: it scores higher (Intelligence Index 20.2 against 8.6). Pick Qwen3-32B if cost matters more: it costs 17 times less per token.

Which is cheaper, Qwen3-32B or o3?

Qwen3-32B is cheaper: $0.21 against $3.50 per million tokens, 17 times less.

Which is better for agents and tool use, Qwen3-32B or o3?

o3 ranks 13 of 164 models on sale for multi-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls, against 113 for Qwen3-32B.

Which is better for reasoning and knowledge, Qwen3-32B or o3?

o3 ranks 99 of 198 models on sale for hard questions across science, maths and general knowledge, against 148 for Qwen3-32B.

Which is better for writing, Qwen3-32B or o3?

o3 ranks 50 of 188 models on sale for what people prefer in blind comparisons, and judged writing quality, against 139 for Qwen3-32B.

Which is better for sticking to the facts, Qwen3-32B or o3?

Qwen3-32B ranks 22 of 152 models on sale for summarising without inventing things, and factual answers, against 91 for o3.

Which has the bigger context window, Qwen3-32B or o3?

o3: 200,000 tokens, against 131,072 for Qwen3-32B.

Run Qwen3-32B and o3 on your own prompt

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

Try the playgroundTalk to us