Model comparison
Claude 2.1 vs Qwen1.5-110B
Qwen1.5-110B is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.6 to 24.9 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. Claude 2.1 scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen1.5-110B in 4 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen1.5-110B leads 31.1 to 9.6.
- Qwen1.5-110B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude 2.1 | Qwen1.5-110B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 24.9 | 33.6 |
| Released | 2023-11-21 | 2024-04-25 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 7 | 20 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen1.5-110B leads
Claude 2.1: 25.8 (#322), Qwen1.5-110B: 32.4 (#260)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 7.1% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 35% |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1184 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 44.4% |
Reasoning Qwen1.5-110B leads
Claude 2.1: 20.6 (#216), Qwen1.5-110B: 21.7 (#192)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| ForecastBench | 54.2 | 57.7 |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1168 |
| DTBench | 51% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 119.22 | — |
Math Qwen1.5-110B leads
Claude 2.1: 9.6 (#309), Qwen1.5-110B: 31.1 (#199)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 1.9% | — |
| LMArena Math | — | 1185 |
Knowledge Qwen1.5-110B leads
Claude 2.1: 15.5 (#287), Qwen1.5-110B: 30.7 (#217)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 33% | — |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1144 |
| MMLU | 73.5% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Qwen1.5-110B: 33.8 (#245)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1142 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1206 |
| LMArena French | — | 1150 |
| LMArena German | — | 1123 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1074 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1044 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1118 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1141 |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Qwen1.5-110B: 60.6 (#247)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1158 |
Long Context Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Qwen1.5-110B: 35.0 (#237)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1157 |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Qwen1.5-110B: 38.1 (#250)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1175 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1148 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1160 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude 2.1 better than Qwen1.5-110B?
Qwen1.5-110B is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.6 to 24.9 on the Noometry Index.
Is Claude 2.1 or Qwen1.5-110B better for coding?
Qwen1.5-110B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 32.4 versus 25.8 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Claude 2.1 and Qwen1.5-110B share?
1 benchmark has published results for both models. Claude 2.1 has 7 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-110B has 20.