Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Exaone 4.0 32B
63
Qwen3.5 397B
63
Verified leaderboard positions: Exaone 4.0 32B unranked · Qwen3.5 397B #22
Treat this as a split decision. Exaone 4.0 32B makes more sense if knowledge is the priority or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile; Qwen3.5 397B is the better fit if you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Knowledge
+16.6 difference
Exaone 4.0 32B
Qwen3.5 397B
N/A
$0.6 / $3.6
N/A
96 t/s
N/A
2.44s
128K
128K
Treat this as a split decision. Exaone 4.0 32B makes more sense if knowledge is the priority or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile; Qwen3.5 397B is the better fit if you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Exaone 4.0 32B and Qwen3.5 397B finish on the same provisional overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The provisional headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.
Exaone 4.0 32B is the reasoning model in the pair, while Qwen3.5 397B is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use.
Exaone 4.0 32B and Qwen3.5 397B are tied on the provisional overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.
Exaone 4.0 32B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 81.8 versus 65.2. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.