| Signal | Qwen3 235B A22B | Delta | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|---|
Capabilities | 67 | -- | |
Pricing | 2 | +2 | |
Context window size | 81 | +8 | |
Recency | 72 | -- | |
Output Capacity | 65 | -12 | |
| Overall Result | 2 wins | of 5 | 1 wins |
7
days higher
4
days
19
days higher
Alibaba
Alibaba
Qwen3 32B saves you $116.50/month
That's $1398.00/year compared to Qwen3 235B A22B at your current usage level of 100K calls/month.
| Metric | Qwen3 235B A22B | Qwen3 32B | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Score | 71 | 71 | Qwen3 32B |
| Rank | #157 | #156 | Qwen3 32B |
| Quality Rank | #157 | #156 | Qwen3 32B |
| Adoption Rank | #157 | #156 | Qwen3 32B |
| Parameters | 235B | 32B | -- |
| Context Window | 131K | 41K | Qwen3 235B A22B |
| Pricing | $0.45/$1.82/M | $0.08/$0.24/M | -- |
| Signal Scores | |||
| Capabilities | 67 | 67 | Qwen3 235B A22B |
| Pricing | 2 | 0 | Qwen3 235B A22B |
| Context window size | 81 | 73 | Qwen3 235B A22B |
| Recency | 72 | 72 | Qwen3 235B A22B |
| Output Capacity | 65 | 77 | Qwen3 32B |
Our composite score (0–100) combines six weighted signals: benchmark performance (25%), pricing efficiency (25%), context window size (15%), model recency (15%), output capacity (10%), and capability versatility (10%). Here's what the scores mean for these two models:
Scores 71/100 (rank #157), placing it in the top 46% of all 290 models tracked.
Scores 71/100 (rank #156), placing it in the top 47% of all 290 models tracked.
With only a 0-point gap, these models are in the same performance tier. The practical difference in output quality is minimal - your choice should depend on pricing, latency requirements, and specific feature needs.
Qwen3 32B offers 86% better value per quality point. At 1M tokens/day, you'd spend $4.80/month with Qwen3 32B vs $34.13/month with Qwen3 235B A22B - a $29.32 monthly difference.
Both models have comparable response speeds. For most applications, the latency difference is negligible.
When latency matters most: Interactive chatbots, IDE code completion, real-time translation, and user-facing applications where response time directly impacts experience. For batch processing, background summarization, or offline analysis, latency is less critical.
Code generation & review
Higher benchmark score (0/100) indicates stronger performance on coding tasks like generating functions, debugging, and refactoring
Customer support chatbot
Faster response time (speed score 0/100) is critical for user-facing chat. Qwen3 32B also offers lower per-token costs for high-volume support
Long document analysis
Larger context window (131K tokens) can process longer documents, contracts, and research papers in a single pass
Batch data extraction
Lower output pricing ($0.24/M) reduces costs when processing thousands of records daily
Creative writing & content
Higher overall composite score (71/100) correlates with better nuance, coherence, and style in long-form content
Qwen3 235B A22B and Qwen3 32B are extremely close in overall performance (only 0.09999999999999432 points apart). Your best choice depends entirely on which specific strengths matter most for your use case.
Best for Quality
Qwen3 235B A22B
Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
Best for Cost
Qwen3 32B
86% lower pricing; better value at scale
Best for Reliability
Qwen3 235B A22B
Higher uptime and faster response speeds
Best for Prototyping
Qwen3 235B A22B
Stronger community support and better developer experience
Best for Production
Qwen3 235B A22B
Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale
by Alibaba
| Capability | Qwen3 235B A22B | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Vision (Image Input) | ||
| Function Calling | ||
| Streaming | ||
| JSON Mode | ||
| Reasoning | ||
| Web Search | ||
| Image Output |
Alibaba
Alibaba
Qwen3 32B saves you $2.57/month
That's 86% cheaper than Qwen3 235B A22B at 1,000 tokens/request and 100 requests/day.
Assumes 60% input / 40% output token ratio per request. Actual costs may vary based on your usage pattern.
| Parameter | Qwen3 235B A22B | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Context Window | 131K | 41K |
| Max Output Tokens | 8,192 | 40,960 |
| Open Source | Yes | Yes |
| Created | Apr 28, 2025 | Apr 28, 2025 |
Qwen3 32B scores 71/100 (rank #156) compared to Qwen3 235B A22B's 71/100 (rank #157), giving it a 0-point advantage. Qwen3 32B is the stronger overall choice, though Qwen3 235B A22B may excel in specific areas like certain benchmarks.
Qwen3 235B A22B is ranked #157 and Qwen3 32B is ranked #156 out of 290+ AI models. Rankings use a composite score combining benchmark performance (25%), pricing (25%), context window (15%), recency (15%), output capacity (10%), and versatility (10%). Scores update hourly.
Qwen3 32B is cheaper at $0.24/M output tokens vs Qwen3 235B A22B's $1.82/M output tokens - 7.6x more expensive. Input token pricing: Qwen3 235B A22B at $0.45/M vs Qwen3 32B at $0.08/M.
Qwen3 235B A22B has a larger context window of 131,072 tokens compared to Qwen3 32B's 40,960 tokens. A larger context window means the model can process longer documents and conversations.