The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct vs Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking

Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking leads the LLM Stats Score 23.5 to 2.0.

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

Which is better?

Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking leads the overall LLM Stats Score 23.5 to 2.0, ranking #177 overall.

In the 3 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking wins 3; 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 Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

  • you want predictable pricing at $0.09/M input and $0.09/M output

Choose Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking

  • overall performance matters — it scores 23.5 and ranks #177 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes reasoning — it leads those capability indexes
  • you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 3 of 3 exact shared results
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Sep 2025

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Core performance indexes
2.0
#320
23.5
#177
2.0
#310
24.7
#157
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
0 of 3
3 of 3
Input price
$0.09 / M
— / M
Output price
$0.09 / M
— / M
Context window
128,000

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

3 shared
Index
Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct
Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking
4.9#276
25.4#111
1.2#190
27.8#37
-0.4#186
27.1#28
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

15 reported for Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct · 47 for Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking

3 shared

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct outperforms in 0 benchmarks, while Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking is better at 3 benchmarks (MMLU, MMLU-Pro, MMLU-Redux).

Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Tue Sep 22 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

1.0B diff

Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking has 1.0B more parameters than Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct, making it 3.1% larger.

Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct
32.0Bparameters
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking
33.0Bparameters
32.0B
Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct
33.0B
Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Only Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct specifies input context (128,000 tokens). Only Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct specifies output context (128,000 tokens).

Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct
Input128,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Tue Sep 22 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking supports multimodal inputs, whereas Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct does not.

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

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

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.

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

Apache 2.0

Open weights

Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking

Apache 2.0

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct was released on 2024-09-19, while Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking was released on 2025-09-22.

Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking is 12 months newer than Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct.

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

Sep 19, 2024

2.0 years ago

Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking

Sep 22, 2025

1.0 years ago

1.0yr newer

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.

Unable to compare the recency of their training data.

No cutoff dates available

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct and Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct
✓ Preferred
Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct vs Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking.

Which is better, Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct or Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking?

Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking leads the LLM Stats Score 23.5 to 2.0. Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct is made by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team 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 Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct compare to Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking in benchmarks?

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct scores HumanEval: 92.7%, GSM8k: 91.1%, MBPP: 90.2%, HellaSwag: 83.0%, Winogrande: 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 Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct and Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking?

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct supports 128K 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 Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct and Qwen3 VL 32B Thinking?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (2.0 vs 23.5), multimodal support (no vs yes). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.