Model comparison
Claude 2.1 vs Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 28.6 to 24.9 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 5 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 5 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude 2.1 scores higher in 1 category and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct in 3 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in coding, where Qwen2.5 7B Instruct leads 35.9 to 25.8.
- Qwen2.5 7B Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude 2.1 | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 24.9 | 28.6 |
| Released | 2023-11-21 | 2024-09 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | 131K |
| Max output | — | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.17 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $0.70 |
| Results tracked | 7 | 15 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen2.5 7B Instruct leads
Claude 2.1: 25.8 (#322), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 35.9 (#204)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 7.1% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 37.6% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 46.1% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 23.5 (#117)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| BALROG | — | 7.8% |
Reasoning Claude 2.1 leads
Claude 2.1: 20.6 (#216), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 14.3 (#317)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| DTBench | 51% | 47.7% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 119.22 | 118.44 |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| LMCA | — | 6.4% |
| ForecastBench | 54.2 | — |
Math Qwen2.5 7B Instruct leads
Claude 2.1: 9.6 (#309), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 11.8 (#300)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 1.9% | 2.5% |
| Omni-MATH | — | 29.4% |
Knowledge Qwen2.5 7B Instruct leads
Claude 2.1: 15.5 (#287), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 17.0 (#281)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 33% | 35.5% |
| MMLU | 73.5% | 72.9% |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 53.9% |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 34.1% |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 63.4 (#226)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| IFEval | — | 74.1% |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 48.8 (#194)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| WildBench | — | 73.1% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude 2.1 better than Qwen2.5 7B Instruct?
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 28.6 to 24.9 on the Noometry Index.
Is Claude 2.1 or Qwen2.5 7B Instruct better for coding?
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 35.9 versus 25.8 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Claude 2.1 and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct share?
5 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude 2.1 has 7 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct has 15.