Qwen 3 4B vs Qwen 3 32B
Architecture Comparison
SpecQwen 3 4BQwen 3 32B
TypeDENSEDENSE
Total Parameters4B32.8B
Active Parameters4B32.8B
Layers3664
Hidden Dimension2,5605,120
Attention Heads3240
KV Heads88
Context Length131,072131,072
Precision (default)BF16BF16
Memory Requirements
PrecisionQwen 3 4BQwen 3 32B
BF16 Weights8.0 GB65.6 GB
FP8 Weights4.0 GB32.8 GB
INT4 Weights2.0 GB16.4 GB
KV-Cache / Token147456 B262144 B
Activation Estimate0.50 GB2.00 GB
Minimum GPUs Needed (BF16)
H100 SXM1 GPU1 GPU
L40S1 GPU2 GPUs
Quality Benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen 3 4BQwen 3 32B
Overall5780
MMLU64.082.0
HumanEval35.055.0
GSM8K65.090.0
MT-Bench73.084.0
Qwen 3 4B
MMLU
64.0
HumanEval
35.0
GSM8K
65.0
MT-Bench
73.0
Qwen 3 32B
MMLU
82.0
HumanEval
55.0
GSM8K
90.0
MT-Bench
84.0
Capabilities
FeatureQwen 3 4BQwen 3 32B
Tool Use✓ Yes✓ Yes
Vision✗ No✗ No
Code✓ Yes✓ Yes
Math✓ Yes✓ Yes
Reasoning✓ Yes✓ Yes
Multilingual✓ Yes✓ Yes
Structured Output✓ Yes✓ Yes
API Pricing Comparison
Cheapest Output (Qwen 3 4B)
$0.10/M
Input: $0.10/M
Cheapest Output (Qwen 3 32B)
$0.80/M
Input: $0.80/M
| Provider | Qwen 3 4B In $/M | Out $/M | Qwen 3 32B In $/M | Out $/M |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| together | $0.10 | $0.10 | $0.80 | $0.80 |
| fireworks | — | — | $0.90 | $0.90 |
Recommendation Summary
- ‣Qwen 3 32B scores higher on overall quality (80 vs 57).
- ‣Qwen 3 4B is cheaper per output token ($0.10/M vs $0.80/M).
- ‣Qwen 3 4B has a smaller memory footprint (8.0 GB vs 65.6 GB BF16), making it easier to deploy on fewer GPUs.
- ‣Qwen 3 32B is stronger at code generation (HumanEval: 55.0 vs 35.0).
- ‣Qwen 3 32B is better at math reasoning (GSM8K: 90.0 vs 65.0).