Beam 1.0 vs Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

Beam 1.0 leads the LLM Stats Score 44.6 to 1.6. Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct is 6.7x cheaper per token.

Reflection AI · Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Beam 1.0 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 44.6 to 1.6, ranking #46 overall.

In the 1 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Beam 1.0 wins 1; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.

On price, Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct is roughly 6.7x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.

Beam 1.0 also accepts a larger context window (1,048,576 input tokens), making it the stronger choice for long documents and large codebases.

Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.

Choose Beam 1.0

overall performance matters — it scores 44.6 and ranks #46 on LLM Stats
your work emphasizes reasoning and coding — it leads those capability indexes
you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 1 of 1 exact shared results
you process long inputs — it offers a 1,048,576 token context window
you want the most recent training data — it shipped Oct 2026

Choose Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

cost matters — it's about 6.7x cheaper per token

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Better token value: Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

Beam 1.0

Reflection AI

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team

Core performance indexes

LLM Stats Score

44.6

#46 · 22 evals

Best

1.6

#343 · 13 evals

Reasoning

45.5

#37 · 19 evals

Best

1.6

#333 · 13 evals

Coding

33.7

#39 · 9 evals

Best

9.8

#189 · 2 evals

Cost, coverage & limits

Benchmark wins

1 of 1

Best

0 of 1

Input price

$0.40 / M

$0.09 / M

Best

Output price

$1.20 / M

$0.09 / M

Best

Context window

1,048,576

Best

128,000

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

1 shared

Index

Beam 1.0

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

Math

35.1#45 · 5 evals

4.9#289 · 6 evals

Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

22 reported for Beam 1.0 · 15 for Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

1 shared

Beam 1.0 outperforms in 1 benchmarks (LiveCodeBench), while Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct is better at 0 benchmarks.

Beam 1.0 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Fri Oct 23 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct costs less

For input processing, Beam 1.0 ($0.40/1M tokens) is 4.4x more expensive than Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct ($0.09/1M tokens).

For output processing, Beam 1.0 ($1.20/1M tokens) is 13.3x more expensive than Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct ($0.09/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Beam 1.0 is more expensive than Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct.*

* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens

Lowest available price from all providers

Fri Oct 23 2026 • llm-stats.com

Beam 1.0

Input tokens$0.40

Output tokens$1.20

Best providerTogether

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

Input tokens$0.09

Output tokens$0.09

Best providerLambda

Notice missing or incorrect data?

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

469.3B diff

Beam 1.0 has 469.3B more parameters than Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct, making it 1466.6% larger.

Beam 1.0

501.3Bparameters

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

32.0Bparameters

501.3B

Beam 1.0

32.0B

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Beam 1.0 accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct's 128,000 tokens. Beam 1.0 can generate longer responses up to 131,072 tokens, while Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct is limited to 128,000 tokens.

Beam 1.0

Input1,048,576 tokens

Output131,072 tokens

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

Input128,000 tokens

Output128,000 tokens

Fri Oct 23 2026 • llm-stats.com

License

Usage and distribution terms

Both models are licensed under Apache 2.0.

Both models share the same licensing terms, providing consistent usage rights.

Beam 1.0

Apache 2.0

Open weights

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

Apache 2.0

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Beam 1.0 was released on 2026-10-16, while Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct was released on 2024-09-19.

Beam 1.0 is 25 months newer than Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct.

Beam 1.0

Oct 16, 2026

6 days ago

2.1yr newer

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

Sep 19, 2024

2.1 years ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Beam 1.0 has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2026-06-30, while Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct's cutoff date is not specified.

We can confirm Beam 1.0's training data extends to 2026-06-30, but cannot make a direct comparison without Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct's cutoff date.

Beam 1.0

Jun 2026

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

—

Provider Availability

Beam 1.0 is available from Together, Reflection AI. Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct is available from Lambda, DeepInfra, Hyperbolic, Fireworks.

Beam 1.0

Together

Input Price:Input: $0.40/1MOutput Price:Output: $1.20/1M

Unknown Organization

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

Lambda

Input Price:Input: $0.09/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.09/1M

Deepinfra

Input Price:Input: $0.18/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.18/1M

Hyperbolic

Input Price:Input: $0.20/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.20/1M

Fireworks

Input Price:Input: $0.89/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.89/1M

* Prices shown are per million tokens

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against Beam 1.0 and Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Beam 1.0

✓ Preferred

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Beam 1.0 vs Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct.

Which is better, Beam 1.0 or Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct?

Beam 1.0 leads the LLM Stats Score 44.6 to 1.6. Beam 1.0 is made by Reflection AI and Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct is made by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their capability indexes, individual benchmarks, pricing, and limits above.

How does Beam 1.0 compare to Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct in benchmarks?

Beam 1.0 scores AIME 2026: 97.7%, GPQA: 90.6%, LiveCodeBench: 88.3%, SWE-Bench Verified: 81.6%, MCP Atlas: 80.8%. Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct scores HumanEval: 92.7%, GSM8k: 91.1%, MBPP: 90.2%, HellaSwag: 83.0%, Winogrande: 80.8%.

Is Beam 1.0 cheaper than Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct?

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct is 4.4x cheaper for input tokens. Beam 1.0 costs $0.40/M input and $1.20/M output via together. Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct costs $0.09/M input and $0.09/M output via lambda.

What are the context window sizes for Beam 1.0 and Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct?

Beam 1.0 supports 1.0M tokens and Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct supports 128K tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between Beam 1.0 and Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (44.6 vs 1.6), context window (1.0M vs 128K), input pricing ($0.40 vs $0.09/M). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Beam 1.0 and Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct?

Beam 1.0 is developed by Reflection AI and Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct is developed by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team.

Beam 1.0 vs Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct