Model comparison

Llama 2-7B vs Qwen2.5 32B Instruct

Llama 2-7B and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct score almost the same on the Noometry Index (29.1 vs 30.1), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.

Llama 2-7B Meta

29.1

Rank #317 Confirmed

Qwen2.5 32B Instruct Alibaba (Qwen)

30.1

Rank #297 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 2-7B scores higher in 2 categories and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct in 2 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Llama 2-7B leads 30.7 to 16.2.

Side by side

Llama 2-7B and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct specifications
Llama 2-7BQwen2.5 32B Instruct
ProviderMetaAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index29.130.1
Released2023-07-182024-09
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window—131K
Max output—8K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.70
Output $ / M tokens—$2.80
Results tracked297

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen2.5 32B Instruct leads

Llama 2-7B: 29.2 (#307), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 38.7 (#169)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 2-7BQwen2.5 32B Instruct
BigCodeBench Instruct—45%
LMArena Coding1002—
BigCodeBench Complete—52.3%

Reasoning Qwen2.5 32B Instruct leads

Llama 2-7B: 15.7 (#312), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 19.2 (#266)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 2-7BQwen2.5 32B Instruct
Chess Puzzles0%0%
Epoch Capabilities Index99.06128.52
LMArena Hard Prompts1009—
BIG-Bench Hard39.2%—
HellaSwag77.2%—
LAMBADA73.3%—
PIQA78.8%—
WinoGrande69.2%—

Math Llama 2-7B leads

Llama 2-7B: 30.7 (#233), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 16.2 (#296)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 2-7BQwen2.5 32B Instruct
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—7.4%
LMArena Math1042—
MATH Level 5—56.1%
GSM8K16.7%—

Knowledge Llama 2-7B leads

Llama 2-7B: 28.2 (#248), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 24.9 (#266)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 2-7BQwen2.5 32B Instruct
GPQA Diamond—46.1%
LMArena Expert1036—
ARC (AI2) Challenge45.9%—
BoolQ77.9%—
MMLU45.8%—
OpenBookQA58.6%—
TriviaQA73.7%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Llama 2-7B: —, Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 2-7BQwen2.5 32B Instruct
ScienceQA43.1%—

Multilingual Not comparable

Llama 2-7B: 23.8 (#293), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 2-7BQwen2.5 32B Instruct
LMArena Non-English973—
LMArena Chinese973—
LMArena French970—
LMArena German978—
LMArena Russian995—
LMArena Spanish1007—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Llama 2-7B: 50.8 (#298), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 2-7BQwen2.5 32B Instruct
LMArena Instruction Following1006—

Long Context Not comparable

Llama 2-7B: 30.4 (#287), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 2-7BQwen2.5 32B Instruct
LMArena Longer Query999—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Llama 2-7B: 28.0 (#298), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 2-7BQwen2.5 32B Instruct
LMArena Text1053—
LMArena Creative Writing1033—
LMArena Multi-Turn1029—

Frequently asked questions

Is Llama 2-7B better than Qwen2.5 32B Instruct?

Llama 2-7B and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct score almost the same on the Noometry Index (29.1 vs 30.1), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Is Llama 2-7B or Qwen2.5 32B Instruct better for coding?

Qwen2.5 32B Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.7 versus 29.2 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Llama 2-7B and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct share?

2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 2-7B has 29 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct has 7.

Related comparisons

Go deeper