Side-by-side benchmark comparison across agentic, coding, multimodal, knowledge, reasoning, and math workflows.
Exaone 4.0 32B is clearly ahead on the aggregate, 83 to 70. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Exaone 4.0 32B's sharpest advantage is in knowledge, where it averages 81.8 against 70.5.
o3-mini gives you the larger context window at 200K, compared with 128K for Exaone 4.0 32B.
Pick Exaone 4.0 32B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. o3-mini only becomes the better choice if you need the larger 200K context window.
Comparable scores for this category are coming soon. One or both models do not have sourced results here yet.
Comparable scores for this category are coming soon. One or both models do not have sourced results here yet.
Comparable scores for this category are coming soon. One or both models do not have sourced results here yet.
Comparable scores for this category are coming soon. One or both models do not have sourced results here yet.
Exaone 4.0 32B
81.8
o3-mini
70.5
Comparable scores for this category are coming soon. One or both models do not have sourced results here yet.
Comparable scores for this category are coming soon. One or both models do not have sourced results here yet.
Comparable scores for this category are coming soon. One or both models do not have sourced results here yet.
Exaone 4.0 32B is ahead overall, 83 to 70.
Exaone 4.0 32B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 81.8 versus 70.5. o3-mini stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Get notified when new models drop, benchmark scores change, or the leaderboard shifts. One email per week.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime. We only store derived location metadata for consent routing.