Model Comparison
o4-mini (high)
vs. Qwen3 32B (Reasoning)
Comparing 2 AI models · 12 benchmarks · OpenAI, Alibaba
Recommended Pick
Opo4-mini (high)20 metric winsStrongest on: Value, Output price, Blended price
Best Value
o4-mini (high)
100.0 value score
70.8 reasoning / $1.93/1M
Lowest Price
Qwen3 32B (Reasoning)
$0.70/1M input price
Best Reasoning
o4-mini (high)
70.8 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
Qwen3 32B (Reasoning)
15.3 coding index
Composite Indices
Higher is better; speed and price are normalized
Standard Benchmarks
Only benchmarks with data are shown
Differences That Matter
Best value
o4-mini (high) has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Price gap
Qwen3 32B (Reasoning) is 1.6x cheaper on input tokens than o4-mini (high).
Speed gap
o4-mini (high) generates about 1.9x as many tokens per second as Qwen3 32B (Reasoning).
Reasoning gap
o4-mini (high) leads Qwen3 32B (Reasoning) by 12.3 points on reasoning.
Top-pick rationale
o4-mini (high) wins 20 measurable categories, including Value, Output price, Blended price, Throughput.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
o4-mini (high)
OpenAI
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Qwen3 32B (Reasoning)
Alibaba
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Chat with leading AI models
Use Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini alongside with EU-Hosted Models like Deepseek, Qwen & Kimi.
EU-hosted inference
Servers in Germany & Finland. Designed to meet strict GDPR and ISO 27001 compliance requirements.
Full Comparison
| Metric | Top Pick Op o4-mini (high) | Al Qwen3 32B (Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $1.10/1M | $0.70/1M |
| Output Cost | $4.40/1M | $8.40/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $1.93/1M | $2.63/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | OpenAI | Alibaba |
| Release Date | Apr 16, 2025 | Apr 28, 2025 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 192.4 tok/s | 100.3 tok/s |
| TTFT | 19206ms | 1120ms |
| Latency | 19206ms | 21051ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 100.0 | 60.6 |
| Reasoning Score | 70.8 | 58.5 |
| Intelligence | 25.6 | 11.5 |
| Coding | — | 15.3 |
| Math | 90.7 | 73.0 |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 78.4% | 66.8% |
| MMLU Pro | 83.2% | 79.8% |
| HLE | 17.5% | 8.3% |
| LiveCodeBench | 85.9% | 54.6% |
| MATH 500 | 98.9% | 96.1% |
| AIME 2025 | 90.7% | 73.0% |
| AIME (Original) | 94.0% | 80.7% |
| SciCode | 46.5% | 35.4% |
| LCR | 55.0% | 0.0% |
| IFBench | 68.7% | 36.3% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 55.6% | 29.8% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 15.2% | 3.0% |
Key Takeaways
Qwen3 32B (Reasoning) offers the best value at $0.70/1M,making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
o4-mini (high) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 70.8 reasoning score,combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
Qwen3 32B (Reasoning) reaches a 15.3 coding index,making it the top choice for software development and code generation tasks.
All models support context windows of ∞+ tokens,suitable for processing lengthy documents and maintaining extended conversations.
When to Choose Each Model
o4-mini (high)
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
Qwen3 32B (Reasoning)
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
- Code generation
- Software development
