ZMIME
Comparison · 3 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

GPT-4.1 vs Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Qwen3 32B

Gemini 2.5 Pro comes out ahead, 63 to 53 and 51 on our weighted score, though Qwen3 32B is 2.8× cheaper per token.

  1. OpenAI

    GPT-4.1

    Released Apr 14, 2025

    53/100
    • ECI136.8
    • Price$2.00 / $8.00
    • Context1.05M
    Full specs Remove GPT-4.1
  2. Our pick

    Google

    Gemini 2.5 Pro

    Released Jun 17, 2025

    63/100
    • ECI145.3
    • Price$1.25 / $10.00
    • Context1.05M
    Full specs Remove Gemini 2.5 Pro

  3. Alibaba (Qwen)

    Qwen3 32B

    Released Apr 29, 2025

    51/100
    • ECI138.5
    • Price$0.70 / $2.80
    • Context131K
    Full specs Remove Qwen3 32B
01 — Verdict

Gemini 2.5 Pro is our pick

Gemini 2.5 Pro is the better all-round choice, scoring 63/100 against GPT-4.1 (53) and Qwen3 32B (51). It leads on capability and inputs & features. Qwen3 32B wins on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

  • CapabilityGemini 2.5 ProCapabilities Index (ECI): Gemini 2.5 Pro 145.3 · Qwen3 32B 138.5 · GPT-4.1 136.8
  • Lowest priceQwen3 32BQwen3 32B $1.23 · Gemini 2.5 Pro $3.44 · GPT-4.1 $3.50 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextGemini 2.5 Pro and GPT-4.1Gemini 2.5 Pro 1,048,576 · GPT-4.1 1,047,576 · Qwen3 32B 131,072 tokens
  • Widest inputsGemini 2.5 ProGPT-4.1: Text, Images, PDFs · Gemini 2.5 Pro: Text, Images, PDFs, Audio, Video · Qwen3 32B: Text
  • Self-hostingQwen3 32BPublishes downloadable weights
How the score is built
MeasureWeightGPT-4.1Gemini 2.5 ProQwen3 32B
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%617264
Price25%242446
Inputs & features15%7010035
Context window10%616124
Overall100%53/10063/10051/100
02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.

GPT-4.1 vs Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Qwen3 32B specifications side by side
SpecificationGPT-4.1OpenAIGemini 2.5 ProGoogleQwen3 32BAlibaba (Qwen)
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)136.8145.3 (best)138.5
ECI rank#111 of 148#78 of 148 (best)#106 of 148
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions66.9%85.3% (best)65.7%
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics6.0%24.6% (best)—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics38.3%84.7% (best)66.9%
SWE-bench VerifiedFixing real GitHub issues48.5%57.6% (best)—
SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions31.1%——
Price per million tokens
Input$2.00$1.25$0.70 (best)
Output$8.00$10.00$2.80 (best)
Cached input$0.50$0.125 (best)—
Blended (3:1)$3.50$3.44$1.23 (best)
Long-context rateSame rateOver 200K: $2.50 / $15.00Same rate
Price sourceOfficial OpenAI APIOfficial Google APIOfficial Alibaba API
Limits
Context window1,047,576 tokens1,048,576 tokens (best)131,072 tokens
Max output32,768 tokens65,536 tokens (best)16,384 tokens
Inputs and features
TextYesYesYes
ImagesYesYesNo
PDFsYesYesNo
AudioNoYesNo
VideoNoYesNo
ReasoningNoYesYes
Tool callingYesYesYes
Structured outputYesYesNo
Availability
WeightsProprietaryProprietaryOpen
API model IDgpt-4.1gemini-2.5-proqwen3-32b
API providers25 (best)2214
ReleasedApr 14, 2025Jun 17, 2025Apr 29, 2025
Knowledge cutoffApr 2024Jan 2025Apr 2025
03 — Cost

What would a month cost?

Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.

  • GPT-4.1$36.00
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro$32.50
  • Qwen3 32B$12.60
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: GPT-4.1, Gemini 2.5 Pro or Qwen3 32B?

Gemini 2.5 Pro is the better all-round choice, scoring 63/100 against GPT-4.1 (53) and Qwen3 32B (51). It leads on capability and inputs & features. Qwen3 32B wins on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

Which is cheaper, GPT-4.1, Gemini 2.5 Pro or Qwen3 32B?

Qwen3 32B is cheaper at $0.70 input / $2.80 output per million tokens (official Alibaba API price). Gemini 2.5 Pro costs $1.25 input / $10.00 output per million tokens (official Google API price); GPT-4.1 costs $2.00 input / $8.00 output per million tokens (official OpenAI API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $1.23 per million tokens for Qwen3 32B versus $3.44 for Gemini 2.5 Pro (2.8× as much) and $3.50 for GPT-4.1 (2.9× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

Gemini 2.5 Pro scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): Gemini 2.5 Pro 145.3 (#78 of 148), Qwen3 32B 138.5 (#106 of 148) and GPT-4.1 136.8 (#111 of 148). Their confidence ranges do not overlap (143.6–146.9 vs 135.1–140.4), so the gap is a real one. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — Gemini 2.5 Pro 85.3%, GPT-4.1 66.9%, Qwen3 32B 65.7%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — Gemini 2.5 Pro 84.7%, Qwen3 32B 66.9%, GPT-4.1 38.3%.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Qwen3 32B yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, Gemini 2.5 Pro leads, which tends to carry over to coding, but test on your own codebase. All three support tool calling for agent workflows.

Which has the bigger context window?

Gemini 2.5 Pro and GPT-4.1 have the largest context windows (1,048,576 and 1,047,576 tokens), against 131,072 for Qwen3 32B. Maximum output per response: GPT-4.1 up to 32,768, Gemini 2.5 Pro up to 65,536, Qwen3 32B up to 16,384 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

GPT-4.1 accepts text, images and PDFs; Gemini 2.5 Pro accepts text, images, PDFs, audio and video; Qwen3 32B accepts text. Gemini 2.5 Pro handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

Qwen3 32B publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; GPT-4.1 and Gemini 2.5 Pro is proprietary.

Which is newer?

Gemini 2.5 Pro is the newest, released Jun 17, 2025. Qwen3 32B came out Apr 29, 2025; GPT-4.1 came out Apr 14, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: GPT-4.1 Apr 2024, Gemini 2.5 Pro Jan 2025, Qwen3 32B Apr 2025.

How do you decide the winner?

Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Oct 4, 2026.

05 — Keep comparing

Related comparisons