Skip to main content

Model comparison

Exaone 4.0 32B vs MAI-Thinking-1

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 2 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

LG AI Research
40.44/100
No comparison
N/A
1 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Exaone 4.0 32B #170 (Estimated); MAI-Thinking-1 unranked (Not scored). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Exaone 4.0 32B and MAI-Thinking-1 share 2 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 11 results are unique to Exaone 4.0 32B; 11 to MAI-Thinking-1.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
2
Exaone 4.0 32B only
11
MAI-Thinking-1 only
11
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Treat this as a split decision. Exaone 4.0 32B makes more sense if knowledge is the priority; MAI-Thinking-1 is the better fit if you need the larger 256K context window.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 2 shared benchmark results across 2 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

Exaone 4.0 32B and MAI-Thinking-1 finish on the same BenchAlign overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The BenchAlign headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.

MAI-Thinking-1 gives you the larger context window at 256K, compared with 128K for Exaone 4.0 32B.

Category breakdown

Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.

Category scores and score margins for Exaone 4.0 32B and MAI-Thinking-1
CategoryExaone 4.0 32BΔMAI-Thinking-1
KnowledgeExaone 4.0 32B81.8Margin 9.3MAI-Thinking-172.5
AgenticExaone 4.0 32BNot measuredMarginNo overlapMAI-Thinking-146.0
CodingExaone 4.0 32BNot measuredMarginNo overlapMAI-Thinking-165.5
MathExaone 4.0 32BNot measuredMarginNo overlapMAI-Thinking-189.7
Inst. FollowingExaone 4.0 32BNot measuredMarginNo overlapMAI-Thinking-185.0

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Exaone 4.0 32BB · MAI-Thinking-1
  1. MMLU-Pro

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 81.8%B 85%
    Winner: MAI-Thinking-1Δ 3.2
    MMLU-Pro: Exaone 4.0 32B scored 81.8%; MAI-Thinking-1 scored 85%. MAI-Thinking-1 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricExaone 4.0 32BMAI-Thinking-1Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensExaone 4.0 32BNot availableMAI-Thinking-1Not availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondExaone 4.0 32BNot availableMAI-Thinking-1Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenExaone 4.0 32BNot availableMAI-Thinking-1Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensExaone 4.0 32B128KMAI-Thinking-1256KMAI-Thinking-1 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkExaone 4.0 32BMAI-Thinking-1Result
τ²-bench resultsSource 4.1%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 46%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkExaone 4.0 32BMAI-Thinking-1Result
AA-SciCodeSource 25.2%Not comparable
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 73.5%Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 52.8%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 46.0%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkExaone 4.0 32BMAI-Thinking-1Result
AA-LCRSource 8.0%Not comparable
CritPtSource 0.0%Not comparable
Graphwalks BFS 128KSource 90%Not comparable
KnowledgeExaone 4.0 32B wins
BenchmarkExaone 4.0 32BMAI-Thinking-1Result
MMLU-ProSource 81.8%85%MAI-Thinking-1 leads
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 6.0%Not comparable
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 62.8%Not comparable
AA-HLESource 4.9%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -62.3%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 10.4%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 81.0%Not comparable
GPQASource 84.2%Not comparable
GPQA-DSource 84.2%Not comparable
SimpleQASource 31%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkExaone 4.0 32BMAI-Thinking-1Result
AIME 2025Source 85.3%97%MAI-Thinking-1 leads
AIME26Source 94.5%Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2026Source 84.9%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkExaone 4.0 32BMAI-Thinking-1Result
AA-IFBenchSource 33.5%Not comparable
IFBenchSource 85%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, Exaone 4.0 32B or MAI-Thinking-1?

Exaone 4.0 32B and MAI-Thinking-1 are tied on the BenchAlign overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Exaone 4.0 32B or MAI-Thinking-1?

Exaone 4.0 32B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 81.8 versus 72.5. Inside this category, MMLU-Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Last updated: July 23, 2026

Choose a model with this week’s evidence

Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.

One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.