Model comparison
Codellama 70b Instruct vs Qwen2.5-Max
Qwen2.5-Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.1 to 33.3 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 4 shared benchmarks.
Meta
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 4 benchmarks with published results for both. Codellama 70b Instruct scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen2.5-Max in 5 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in multilingual, where Qwen2.5-Max leads 48.3 to 24.9.
- Codellama 70b Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Codellama 70b Instruct | Qwen2.5-Max | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 33.3 | 40.1 |
| Released | — | 2025-01-25 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 7 | 27 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen2.5-Max leads
Codellama 70b Instruct: 37.0 (#189), Qwen2.5-Max: 41.2 (#118)
| Benchmark | Codellama 70b Instruct | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 40.7% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 64.4% |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1359 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 49.6% | — |
| HumanEval+ | 65.9% | — |
Reasoning Qwen2.5-Max leads
Codellama 70b Instruct: 19.2 (#241), Qwen2.5-Max: 24.6 (#144)
| Benchmark | Codellama 70b Instruct | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1052 | 1360 |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 51.4% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 67.9% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 132.54 |
| LiveBench | — | 62.3% |
Math Not comparable
Codellama 70b Instruct: —, Qwen2.5-Max: 34.3 (#162)
| Benchmark | Codellama 70b Instruct | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Math | — | 58.4% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1369 |
Knowledge Not comparable
Codellama 70b Instruct: —, Qwen2.5-Max: 34.8 (#181)
| Benchmark | Codellama 70b Instruct | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| Confabulations | — | 21.8% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1337 |
Multilingual Qwen2.5-Max leads
Codellama 70b Instruct: 24.9 (#283), Qwen2.5-Max: 48.3 (#140)
| Benchmark | Codellama 70b Instruct | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 992 | 1352 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1382 |
| LMArena French | — | 1396 |
| LMArena German | — | 1350 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1299 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1304 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1353 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1377 |
Instruction Following Qwen2.5-Max leads
Codellama 70b Instruct: 52.1 (#288), Qwen2.5-Max: 71.5 (#147)
| Benchmark | Codellama 70b Instruct | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1024 | 1335 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 75.3% |
Long Context Not comparable
Codellama 70b Instruct: —, Qwen2.5-Max: 41.3 (#137)
| Benchmark | Codellama 70b Instruct | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1358 |
Writing & Preference Qwen2.5-Max leads
Codellama 70b Instruct: 33.6 (#272), Qwen2.5-Max: 55.6 (#141)
| Benchmark | Codellama 70b Instruct | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1057 | 1367 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1339 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 72.9% |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1364 |
| LiveBench Language | — | 56.3% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Codellama 70b Instruct better than Qwen2.5-Max?
Qwen2.5-Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.1 to 33.3 on the Noometry Index.
Is Codellama 70b Instruct or Qwen2.5-Max better for coding?
Qwen2.5-Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.2 versus 37.0 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Codellama 70b Instruct and Qwen2.5-Max share?
4 benchmarks have published results for both models. Codellama 70b Instruct has 7 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Max has 27.