QwQ 32B vs Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview
Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview comes out ahead, 50 to 43 on our weighted score, though QwQ 32B is 2.7× cheaper per token.
Alibaba (Qwen)QwQ 32B
43/100- ECI137.6
- Price$0.66 / $1.00
- Context131K
- Our pick
GoogleGemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview
50/100- ECI—
- Price$1.00 / $5.00
- Context131K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview is our pick
Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview is the better all-round choice, scoring 50/100 against QwQ 32B (43). It leads on inputs & features. QwQ 32B wins on price. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
- CapabilityNot enough dataNo independent benchmark covers every model here yet
- Lowest priceQwQ 32BQwQ 32B $0.745 · Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview $2.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextAbout the sameQwQ 32B 131,072 · Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview 131,072 tokens
- Widest inputsGemini Robotics-ER 1.6 PreviewQwQ 32B: Text · Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview: Text, Images, Audio, Video
- Self-hostingQwQ 32BPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | QwQ 32B | Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 56 | 36 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 35 | 90 |
| Context window | 20% | 24 | 24 |
| Overall | 100% | 43/100 | 50/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | QwQ 32BAlibaba (Qwen) | Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 PreviewGoogle |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 137.6 | — |
| ECI rank | #109 of 148 | — |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | 65.3% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | 59.2% | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.66 (best) | $1.00 |
| Output | $1.00 (best) | $5.00 |
| Cached input | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.745 (best) | $2.00 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 1 providers | Median of 1 providers |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 131,072 tokens | 131,072 tokens |
| Max output | 8,192 tokens | 65,536 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | Yes |
| Video | No | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | Yes |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| API model ID | — | — |
| API providers | 1 | 1 |
| Released | Mar 5, 2025 | Apr 14, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Apr 2024 | Jan 2025 |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- QwQ 32B$8.60
- Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview$20.00
Which should you choose?
Which is better: QwQ 32B or Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview?
Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview is the better all-round choice, scoring 50/100 against QwQ 32B (43). It leads on inputs & features. QwQ 32B wins on price. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
Which is cheaper, QwQ 32B or Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview?
QwQ 32B is cheaper at $0.66 input / $1.00 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview costs $1.00 input / $5.00 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.745 per million tokens for QwQ 32B versus $2.00 for Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview (2.7× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. QwQ 32B has an ECI of 137.6 and Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for QwQ 32B and Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
QwQ 32B and Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview share the same 131,072-token context window. Maximum output per response: QwQ 32B up to 8,192, Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview up to 65,536 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
QwQ 32B accepts text; Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview accepts text, images, audio and video. Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
QwQ 32B publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview is the newest, released Apr 14, 2026. QwQ 32B came out Mar 5, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: QwQ 32B Apr 2024, Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview Jan 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.
Related comparisons
- Add GPT-4.1 miniThree-way comparison
- QwQ 32B vs GPT-4.1 miniOpenAI · ECI 135.0
- QwQ 32B vs DeepSeek-R1DeepSeek · ECI 139.0
- QwQ 32B vs Mistral Medium 3Mistral AI · ECI 134.1
- QwQ 32B vs Gemini 2.5 FlashGoogle · ECI 140.8
- Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview vs GLM-5V-TurboZ.ai (Zhipu)
- Gemini Robotics-ER 1.6 Preview vs DeepSeek V4 ProDeepSeek
