Model comparison
Claude 2.1 vs Qwen1.5-32B
Qwen1.5-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 30.0 to 24.9 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude 2.1 scores higher in 1 category and Qwen1.5-32B in 3 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen1.5-32B leads 30.5 to 9.6.
- Qwen1.5-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude 2.1 | Qwen1.5-32B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 24.9 | 30.0 |
| Released | 2023-11-21 | 2024-02-04 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 7 | 21 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen1.5-32B leads
Claude 2.1: 25.8 (#322), Qwen1.5-32B: 31.1 (#278)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 7.1% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 32.3% |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1155 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 42% |
Reasoning Too close to call
Claude 2.1: 20.6 (#216), Qwen1.5-32B: 20.9 (#210)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1131 |
| DTBench | 51% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 119.22 | — |
| ForecastBench | 54.2 | — |
Math Qwen1.5-32B leads
Claude 2.1: 9.6 (#309), Qwen1.5-32B: 30.5 (#207)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 1.9% | — |
| LMArena Math | — | 1155 |
Knowledge Claude 2.1 leads
Claude 2.1: 15.5 (#287), Qwen1.5-32B: 13.5 (#291)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 33% | 30.7% |
| MMLU | 73.5% | 74.4% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1126 |
Multilingual Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Qwen1.5-32B: 31.6 (#254)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1106 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1176 |
| LMArena French | — | 1100 |
| LMArena German | — | 1058 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1027 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1007 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1073 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1089 |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Qwen1.5-32B: 58.0 (#260)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1116 |
Long Context Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Qwen1.5-32B: 34.7 (#241)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1146 |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Qwen1.5-32B: 34.4 (#266)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1137 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1083 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1140 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude 2.1 better than Qwen1.5-32B?
Qwen1.5-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 30.0 to 24.9 on the Noometry Index.
Is Claude 2.1 or Qwen1.5-32B better for coding?
Qwen1.5-32B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 31.1 versus 25.8 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Claude 2.1 and Qwen1.5-32B share?
2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude 2.1 has 7 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-32B has 21.