Model comparison
Qwen1.5-32B vs Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
Qwen1.5-32B and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct score almost the same on the Noometry Index (30.5 vs 30.1), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Last verified . 3 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen1.5-32B 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 Qwen1.5-32B leads 33.0 to 16.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 30.7% for Qwen1.5-32B and 46.1% for Qwen2.5 32B Instruct.
Side by side
| Qwen1.5-32B | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 30.5 | 30.1 |
| Released | 2024-02-04 | 2024-09 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | 131K |
| Max output | — | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.70 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $2.80 |
| Results tracked | 21 | 7 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen2.5 32B Instruct leads
Qwen1.5-32B: 31.7 (#282), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 38.7 (#169)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-32B | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 32.3% | 45% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 42% | 52.3% |
| LMArena Coding | 1155 | — |
Reasoning Qwen1.5-32B leads
Qwen1.5-32B: 21.8 (#212), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 19.2 (#266)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-32B | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1130 | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 128.52 |
Math Qwen1.5-32B leads
Qwen1.5-32B: 33.0 (#207), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 16.2 (#296)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-32B | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 7.4% |
| LMArena Math | 1155 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 56.1% |
Knowledge Qwen2.5 32B Instruct leads
Qwen1.5-32B: 13.5 (#296), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 24.9 (#266)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-32B | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 30.7% | 46.1% |
| LMArena Expert | 1126 | — |
| MMLU | 74.4% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Qwen1.5-32B: 31.4 (#259), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-32B | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1106 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1177 | — |
| LMArena French | 1101 | — |
| LMArena German | 1058 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1027 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1008 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1073 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1089 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Qwen1.5-32B: 57.7 (#265), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-32B | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1116 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Qwen1.5-32B: 34.7 (#246), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-32B | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1146 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Qwen1.5-32B: 34.2 (#271), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-32B | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1137 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1083 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1140 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Qwen1.5-32B better than Qwen2.5 32B Instruct?
Qwen1.5-32B and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct score almost the same on the Noometry Index (30.5 vs 30.1), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Is Qwen1.5-32B or Qwen2.5 32B Instruct better for coding?
Qwen2.5 32B Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.7 versus 31.7 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Qwen1.5-32B and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct share?
3 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen1.5-32B has 21 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct has 7.