Pairwise benchmark snapshot · Aug 16, 2026noindex (thin pair)

Grok 3 vs Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct benchmark

Name: Grok 3 vs Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct AI benchmark comparison
Creator: CompareLLM
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This page compares Grok 3 (xAI) and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct (Alibaba) using the latest snapshots we have as of Aug 16, 2026. Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct wins on output price at $1/1M. Grok 3 has the larger context window (131k tokens). Every cell below is a dated snapshot from a named public source — we do not invent missing scores, and we do not run SWE-bench ourselves.

Share Analysis:

WhatsApp Telegram X / Post LinkedIn Reddit

xAI

Grok 3

Previous xAI generation before Grok 4. Kept for grok 3 vs grok 4.

Elo 1,405$15/1M out

Alibaba

Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct

Auto-discovered from OpenRouter (qwen/qwen-2.5-coder-32b-instruct). Preview until a second source matches.

$1/1M out

Swap or Add Any Model to this Matchup

Instant pairwise benchmark recalculation across 400+ LLMs

Model A

Model B

Quick vs:vs Claude Opus 4.5 vs Claude Opus 4.6 vs Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs Claude 3.7 Sonnet

Interactive Comparison Diagram

Matchup Breakdown

Tug-of-War Matchup Matrix

Category wins across intelligence, speed, and pricing efficiency.

Grok 3 (7)vsQwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct (2)

Grok 3: 7W (78%)Overall: Grok 3Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct: 2W (22%)

← Grok 3Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct →

Grok 3 (4/5)

Intelligence & Reasoning

Preference Elo, Coding proficiency, SWE-bench & LiveBench accuracy

Preference Elo

1,405vs—

Coding Elo

—vs—

SWE-bench

51.4%vs—

LiveBench

60.2%vs—

GPQA Diamond

74.2%vs—

Grok 3: 4WQwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct: 0W

Grok 3 (2/2)

Speed & Latency

Generation throughput and time to first token responsiveness

Output speed

88 tok/svs—

Time to first token

250 msvs—

Grok 3: 2WQwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct: 0W

Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct (2/3)

Pricing & Capacity

Cost per million tokens and max context window length

Output price

$15/1Mvs$1/1M

Input price

$3/1Mvs$0.66/1M

Context window

131kvs33k

Grok 3: 1WQwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct: 2W

Capability Matchup Radar

Multi-Dimensional Capability Radar

Each spoke is a skill. Farther from the center is better (0–100th percentile). Tap any dot to inspect details.

Tap any node to inspect

Percentile 0–100

Dimensional AdvantageGrok 3 5/6

Preference Elo

No shared data

Throughput Speed

No shared data

Price Efficiency

Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct

$14.00/1M cheaper

Full Benchmark Score Matrix

—

Elo

High is better

1,405

EloHigh is better

—

LiveBench

High is better

60.2%

LiveBenchHigh is better

—

SWE-bench

High is better

51.4%

SWE-benchHigh is better

—

GPQA

High is better

74.2%

GPQAHigh is better

—

TTFT

Low is better

250 ms

TTFTLow is better

—

Speed

High is better

88 tok/s

SpeedHigh is better

—

In $

Low is better

$3/1M

In $Low is better

$0.66/1M+355%

Out $

Low is better

$15/1M

Out $Low is better

$1/1M+1400%

Context

High is better

+300%131k

ContextHigh is better

33k

Interactive Simulator

Workload Cost & Savings Calculator

Simulate monthly production API costs based on published $/1M tokens.

Save up to 88% with Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct

Monthly Volume50M tokens/mo

Quick Presets:

Token Ratio (In vs Out)70% In / 30% Out

RAG / Search (10% out)Coding / Chat (50% out)

Grok 3$330.00 / mo

In: $105.00Out: $225.00

Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct$38.10 / mo

In: $23.10Out: $15.00

Estimated Cost Delta

Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct is estimated to save $291.90/month ($3,503/year).

Based on 50M tokens (30% gen)

Key Selection Recommendations

1
Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct:Pick Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct when you are optimizing output cost.

Recommended Workload Routing

Repo / coding agentsinsufficient data

Need SWE-bench on both sides.

High-volume chatQwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct

Lower output list price ($1/1M).

Voice / low-latency UIinsufficient data

Need TTFT on both sides.

Long-document RAGGrok 3

Larger window (131k).

Screenshots / visionGrok 3

Grok 3 is the side marked multimodal in the catalog.

Target Workload	Recommended Pick	Evaluation Rationale
Repo / coding agents	insufficient data	Need SWE-bench on both sides.
High-volume chat	Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct	Lower output list price ($1/1M).
Voice / low-latency UI	insufficient data	Need TTFT on both sides.
Long-document RAG	Grok 3	Larger window (131k).
Screenshots / vision	Grok 3	Grok 3 is the side marked multimodal in the catalog.

Community Sentiment

Cast Your Matchup Vote

0 total votes

Community Discussions (0)

No comments posted on this matchup yet. Be the first to share an evaluation note!

Share card

The real PNG is generated at /compare/grok-3-vs-qwen-2-5-coder-32b-instruct/opengraph-image for crawlers.

PNG

CompareLLM Matrix

Verified head-to-head card

LIVE

xAI

Grok 3

Elo 1,405

LiveBench60.2%

SWE-bench51.4%

Speed88 tok/s

Output cost$15/1M

Alibaba

Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct

Elo n/a

LiveBench—

SWE-bench—

Speed—

Output cost$1/1M

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is better overall, Grok 3 or Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct?: We do not have preference Elo for both models, so we do not declare an overall winner. Compare the metrics that exist.
Which is better at coding, Grok 3 or Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct?: SWE-bench is missing for at least one model, so we do not rank coding from a single number.
Which is cheaper to run in production?: Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct output tokens are $1/1M versus $15/1M. Input prices and retry rates still move the real bill.
Which is faster, Grok 3 or Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct?: We do not have TTFT for both models.
Which has the larger context window?: Grok 3 accepts 131k tokens versus 33k.
Can I self-host either model?: Neither model is marked open-weights here. You are comparing hosted APIs.
Are these scores from CompareLLM’s own evals?: No. V1 aggregates public leaderboards (and optional first-party latency pings). Each cell names its source and date. Read /methodology.
What does preference Elo mean on this page?: Preference Elo is a crowd vote from LMArena / Arena. People see two hidden answers and pick the one they like more. The model that wins more often gets a higher Elo. That means people preferred it — not that it passed a school test. It is not SWE-bench, not accuracy, and not a number we invent. Grok 3 and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct Elo cells are dated snapshots from the named source — we do not compute Arena ourselves.

Similar Head-to-Head Comparisons

All Grok 3 matchups →|All Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct matchups →

Grok 3 vs Grok 4 (next grok)Qwen 3 Max vs Grok 3 Grok 4.6 vs Grok 3 Qwen QwQ 32B vs Grok 3 Qwen 2.5 Plus vs Grok 3 Qwen3.8 27B vs Grok 3

Grok 3 vs Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct benchmark

Interactive Comparison Diagram

Matchup Breakdown

Tug-of-War Matchup Matrix

Category wins across intelligence, speed, and pricing efficiency.

Grok 3 (7)vsQwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct (2)

Grok 3: 7W (78%)Overall: Grok 3Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct: 2W (22%)

← Grok 3Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct →

Grok 3 (4/5)

Intelligence & Reasoning

Preference Elo, Coding proficiency, SWE-bench & LiveBench accuracy

Preference Elo

1,405vs—

Coding Elo

—vs—

SWE-bench

51.4%vs—

LiveBench

60.2%vs—

GPQA Diamond

74.2%vs—

Grok 3: 4WQwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct: 0W

Grok 3 (2/2)

Speed & Latency

Generation throughput and time to first token responsiveness

Output speed

88 tok/svs—

Time to first token

250 msvs—

Grok 3: 2WQwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct: 0W

Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct (2/3)

Pricing & Capacity

Cost per million tokens and max context window length

Output price

$15/1Mvs$1/1M

Input price

$3/1Mvs$0.66/1M

Context window

131kvs33k

Grok 3: 1WQwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct: 2W

Recommended Workload Routing

Repo / coding agentsinsufficient data

Need SWE-bench on both sides.

High-volume chatQwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct

Lower output list price ($1/1M).

Voice / low-latency UIinsufficient data

Need TTFT on both sides.

Long-document RAGGrok 3

Larger window (131k).

Screenshots / visionGrok 3

Grok 3 is the side marked multimodal in the catalog.

Target Workload	Recommended Pick	Evaluation Rationale
Repo / coding agents	insufficient data	Need SWE-bench on both sides.
High-volume chat	Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct	Lower output list price ($1/1M).
Voice / low-latency UI	insufficient data	Need TTFT on both sides.
Long-document RAG	Grok 3	Larger window (131k).
Screenshots / vision	Grok 3	Grok 3 is the side marked multimodal in the catalog.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is better overall, Grok 3 or Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct?

We do not have preference Elo for both models, so we do not declare an overall winner. Compare the metrics that exist.

Which is better at coding, Grok 3 or Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct?

SWE-bench is missing for at least one model, so we do not rank coding from a single number.

Which is cheaper to run in production?

Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct output tokens are $1/1M versus $15/1M. Input prices and retry rates still move the real bill.

Which is faster, Grok 3 or Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct?

We do not have TTFT for both models.

Which has the larger context window?

Grok 3 accepts 131k tokens versus 33k.

Can I self-host either model?

Neither model is marked open-weights here. You are comparing hosted APIs.

Are these scores from CompareLLM’s own evals?

No. V1 aggregates public leaderboards (and optional first-party latency pings). Each cell names its source and date. Read /methodology.

What does preference Elo mean on this page?

Preference Elo is a crowd vote from LMArena / Arena. People see two hidden answers and pick the one they like more. The model that wins more often gets a higher Elo. That means people preferred it — not that it passed a school test. It is not SWE-bench, not accuracy, and not a number we invent. Grok 3 and Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct Elo cells are dated snapshots from the named source — we do not compute Arena ourselves.