Model comparison
o3 vs Qwen2.5-VL-32B
Head-to-head evidence from 0 shared benchmark results across 0 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: o3 #131 (Supported); Qwen2.5-VL-32B #175 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. o3 and Qwen2.5-VL-32B share 0 comparable benchmark results. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 16 results are unique to o3; 0 to Qwen2.5-VL-32B.
Updated July 22, 2026- Shared results
- 0
- o3 only
- 16
- Qwen2.5-VL-32B only
- 0
- Comparable categories
- 0 / 8
Benchmark data for o3 and Qwen2.5-VL-32B is coming soon on BenchLM.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 0 shared benchmark results across 0 evidence categories; 0 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
BenchLM does not have sourced benchmark coverage for Qwen2.5-VL-32B yet. This comparison is currently limited to metadata such as context window, reasoning mode, and pricing where available.
o3 is priced at $2.00 input / $8.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Qwen2.5-VL-32B. o3 has the larger context window at 200K, compared with 32K for Qwen2.5-VL-32B.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | o3 | Qwen2.5-VL-32B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | o3$2 input / $8 output | Qwen2.5-VL-32B$0 input / $0 output | Qwen2.5-VL-32B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | o3118 tok/s | Qwen2.5-VL-32BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | o35.38 s | Qwen2.5-VL-32BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | o3200K | Qwen2.5-VL-32B32K | o3 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | o3 | Qwen2.5-VL-32B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 80.7% | — | Not comparable |
Coding1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | o3 | Qwen2.5-VL-32B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-SciCodeSource | 41.0% | — | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge6 benchmarks
| Benchmark | o3 | Qwen2.5-VL-32B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 30.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 82.7% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | 20.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -15.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 38.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 87.1% | — | Not comparable |
Math3 benchmarks
Multimodal2 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | o3 | Qwen2.5-VL-32B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 71.4% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Can I compare o3 and Qwen2.5-VL-32B on BenchLM yet?
Not fully yet. BenchLM is tracking both models, but the sourced benchmark breakdown for this comparison is still coming soon.
Why does this comparison show “coming soon”?
BenchLM only shows category winners and benchmark-level calls when we have sourced results that can be compared fairly. For these models, the public benchmark coverage is not complete enough yet.
What data is available for o3 and Qwen2.5-VL-32B today?
o3: $2.00 input / $8.00 output per 1M tokens Qwen2.5-VL-32B: $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens Both model pages still include creator, context window, reasoning mode, and other metadata while benchmark coverage fills in.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
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.