The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Beam 1.0 vs Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking

Beam 1.0 leads the LLM Stats Score 44.6 to 23.2.

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

Which is better?

Beam 1.0 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 44.6 to 23.2, 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.

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 agents — it leads those capability indexes
  • you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 1 of 1 exact shared results
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Oct 2026

Choose Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking

  • you are already invested in the Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team ecosystem

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Beam 1.0
Reflection AI
Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
44.6
#46
23.2
#198
Reasoning
45.5
#37
24.3
#179
Agents
28.8
#53
12.8
#119
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
1 of 1
0 of 1
Input price
$0.40 / M
— / M
Output price
$1.20 / M
— / M
Context window
1,048,576
—

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

2 shared
Index
Beam 1.0
Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking
Math
35.1#45
25.3#118
Vision
15.9#105
16.9#103
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

22 reported for Beam 1.0 · 47 for Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking

1 shared

Beam 1.0 outperforms in 1 benchmarks (GPQA), while Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking is better at 0 benchmarks.

Beam 1.0 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Thu Oct 22 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

468.3B diff

Beam 1.0 has 468.3B more parameters than Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking, making it 1419.1% larger.

Reflection AI
Beam 1.0
501.3Bparameters
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking
33.0Bparameters
501.3B
Beam 1.0
33.0B
Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Only Beam 1.0 specifies input context (1,048,576 tokens). Only Beam 1.0 specifies output context (131,072 tokens).

Reflection AI
Beam 1.0
Input1,048,576 tokens
Output131,072 tokens
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Thu Oct 22 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking supports multimodal inputs, whereas Beam 1.0 does not.

Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

Beam 1.0

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking

Text
Images
Audio
Video

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

Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking

Apache 2.0

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Beam 1.0 was released on 2026-10-16, while Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking was released on 2025-09-22.

Beam 1.0 is 13 months newer than Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking.

Beam 1.0

Oct 16, 2026

3 days ago

1.1yr newer
Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking

Sep 22, 2025

1.1 years ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Beam 1.0 has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2026-06-30, while Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking'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 Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking's cutoff date.

Beam 1.0

Jun 2026

Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking

—

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against Beam 1.0 and Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Beam 1.0
✓ Preferred
Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Beam 1.0 vs Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking.

Which is better, Beam 1.0 or Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking?

Beam 1.0 leads the LLM Stats Score 44.6 to 23.2. Beam 1.0 is made by Reflection AI and Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking 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 Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking 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%. Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking scores DocVQAtest: 96.1%, ScreenSpot: 95.7%, MMLU-Redux: 91.9%, MMBench-V1.1: 90.8%, CharXiv-D: 90.2%.

What are the context window sizes for Beam 1.0 and Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking?

Beam 1.0 supports 1.0M tokens and Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking supports an unknown number of 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 Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (44.6 vs 23.2), multimodal support (no vs yes). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Beam 1.0 and Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking?

Beam 1.0 is developed by Reflection AI and Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking is developed by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team.

Related comparisons