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 72. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Pick Exaone 4.0 32B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning) only becomes the better choice if mathematics is the priority.
Benchmark data for this category is coming soon.
Comparable scores for this category are coming soon. One or both models do not have sourced results here yet.
Benchmark data for this category is coming soon.
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
Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning)
85.2
Comparable scores for this category are coming soon. One or both models do not have sourced results here yet.
Benchmark data for this category is coming soon.
Exaone 4.0 32B
85.3
Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning)
93.1
Exaone 4.0 32B is ahead overall, 83 to 72. The biggest single separator in this matchup is AIME 2025, where the scores are 85.3% and 94%.
Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning) has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 85.2 versus 81.8. Inside this category, MMLU-Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning) has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 93.1 versus 85.3. Inside this category, AIME 2025 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
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.