ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview vs Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview leads the LLM Stats Score 52.3 to 1.5. Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct is 5.5x cheaper per token.
Baidu · Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Updated for 2026
Which is better?
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview leads the overall LLM Stats Score 52.3 to 1.5, ranking #13 overall.
On price, Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct is roughly 5.5x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview 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 ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview
- overall performance matters — it scores 52.3 and ranks #13 on LLM Stats
- your work emphasizes reasoning and coding — it leads those capability indexes
- you process long inputs — it offers a 1,048,576 token context window
- you want the most recent training data — it shipped Nov 2026
Choose Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct
- cost matters — it's about 5.5x cheaper per token
- you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune
At a glance
The differences that matter most.
Individual benchmarks
13 reported for ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview · 15 for Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview and Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instructdon't have any common benchmark datasets to compare. They may have been evaluated on different testing suites.
Human preference
Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores
Pricing Analysis
Price comparison per million tokens
For input processing, ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview ($0.28/1M tokens) is 3.1x more expensive than Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct ($0.09/1M tokens).
For output processing, ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview ($1.13/1M tokens) is 12.6x more expensive than Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct ($0.09/1M tokens).
In conclusion, ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview is more expensive than Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Model Size
Parameter count comparison
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview has 248.0B more parameters than Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct, making it 775.0% larger.
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct's 128,000 tokens. ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview can generate longer responses up to 1,048,576 tokens, while Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct is limited to 128,000 tokens.
License
Usage and distribution terms
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview is licensed under a proprietary license, while Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct uses Apache 2.0.
License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.
Proprietary
Closed source
Apache 2.0
Open weights
Release Timeline
When each model was launched
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview was released on 2026-11-11, while Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct was released on 2024-09-19.
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview is 26 months newer than Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct.
Nov 11, 2026
1 days ago
2.1yr newerSep 19, 2024
2.1 years ago
Knowledge Cutoff
When training data ends
Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.
Unable to compare the recency of their training data.
Provider Availability
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview is available from Baidu Qianfan. Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct is available from Lambda, DeepInfra, Hyperbolic, Fireworks.
ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview
Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct
Outputs Comparison
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview and Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
FAQ
Common questions about ERNIE 5.5 Flash Preview vs Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct.