Noometry

Model comparison

Llama 2-70B vs Qwen3.8 Max

Qwen3.8 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.8 to 24.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 21 shared benchmarks.

Llama 2-70B Meta

24.4

Rank #349 Confirmed

Qwen3.8 Max Alibaba (Qwen)

56.8

Rank #22 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 21 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 2-70B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.8 Max in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.8 Max leads 73.2 to 8.1.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 0% for Llama 2-70B and 100% for Qwen3.8 Max.
  • Llama 2-70B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Llama 2-70BQwen3.8 Max
ProviderMetaAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index24.456.8
Released2023-07-182026-08-02
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window—1M
Max output—131K
Input $ / M tokens—$2
Output $ / M tokens—$6
Results tracked3539

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.8 Max leads

Llama 2-70B: 31.4 (#286), Qwen3.8 Max: 53.5 (#29)

BenchmarkLlama 2-70BQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Coding10791502
DeepSWE—57.5%
LMArena WebDev—1674
FrontierSWE—17.8%
SciCode—53.2%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Llama 2-70B: —, Qwen3.8 Max: 45.4 (#14)

BenchmarkLlama 2-70BQwen3.8 Max
APEX-Agents—63.3%
τ²-bench Banking—55.1%
GDP.pdf—23.2%

Reasoning Qwen3.8 Max leads

Llama 2-70B: 14.4 (#325), Qwen3.8 Max: 54.4 (#26)

BenchmarkLlama 2-70BQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Hard Prompts10731496
DTBench41.6%92%
Epoch Capabilities Index113.79156.41
NYT Connections (extended)—88.3%
CritPt—20%
Chess Puzzles—40%
Mystery Game Puzzles—38%
LMCA—46.2%
BIG-Bench Hard64.9%—
CommonsenseQA 2.050%—
ForecastBench51.4—
HellaSwag85.3%—
LAMBADA78.9%—
PIQA82.8%—
WinoGrande80.2%—

Math Qwen3.8 Max leads

Llama 2-70B: 8.1 (#326), Qwen3.8 Max: 73.2 (#20)

BenchmarkLlama 2-70BQwen3.8 Max
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-20250%100%
LMArena Math10911499
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—74.7%
FrontierMath Tier 4—46.3%
ProofBench—58%
MATH Level 53.3%—
GSM8K69.6%—

Knowledge Qwen3.8 Max leads

Llama 2-70B: 7.4 (#310), Qwen3.8 Max: 61.7 (#27)

BenchmarkLlama 2-70BQwen3.8 Max
GPQA Diamond26.3%92.7%
LMArena Expert10391507
SimpleQA Verified—47.3%
ARC (AI2) Challenge78.3%—
BoolQ88.6%—
MMLU69.9%—
OpenBookQA60.2%—
TriviaQA87.6%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Llama 2-70B: —, Qwen3.8 Max: 37.2 (#75)

BenchmarkLlama 2-70BQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Vision—1314
Furniture Assembly—20%

Multilingual Qwen3.8 Max leads

Llama 2-70B: 27.7 (#274), Qwen3.8 Max: 56.7 (#18)

BenchmarkLlama 2-70BQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Non-English10451472
LMArena Chinese9951538
LMArena French10901503
LMArena German10411483
LMArena Japanese9271467
LMArena Korean9641461
LMArena Russian10831481
LMArena Spanish11431492

Instruction Following Qwen3.8 Max leads

Llama 2-70B: 54.9 (#278), Qwen3.8 Max: 77.6 (#17)

BenchmarkLlama 2-70BQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Instruction Following10711479

Long Context Qwen3.8 Max leads

Llama 2-70B: 32.3 (#270), Qwen3.8 Max: 45.6 (#31)

BenchmarkLlama 2-70BQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Longer Query10621489

Writing & Preference Qwen3.8 Max leads

Llama 2-70B: 32.3 (#279), Qwen3.8 Max: 67.1 (#30)

BenchmarkLlama 2-70BQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Text11151483
LMArena Creative Writing10751479
LMArena Multi-Turn10881489

Frequently asked questions

Is Llama 2-70B better than Qwen3.8 Max?

Qwen3.8 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.8 to 24.4 on the Noometry Index.

Is Llama 2-70B or Qwen3.8 Max better for coding?

Qwen3.8 Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.5 versus 31.4 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Llama 2-70B and Qwen3.8 Max share?

21 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 2-70B has 35 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.8 Max has 39.

Related comparisons

Go deeper