Model comparison
Claude 2.1 vs Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
Qwen2.5-Coder-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.4 to 25.2 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 2 categories and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B in 2 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen2.5-Coder-32B leads 33.3 to 10.2.
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude 2.1 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 25.2 | 33.4 |
| Released | 2023-11-21 | 2024-09-18 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | 33K |
| Max output | — | 29K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.66 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $1 |
| Results tracked | 7 | 31 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude 2.1 leads
Claude 2.1: 26.2 (#327), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 22.6 (#333)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | — | 9% |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 16.4% |
| WeirdML | 7.1% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 49% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 56.9% |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1276 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 58% |
| HumanEval+ | — | 87.2% |
| MBPP+ | — | 77% |
Reasoning Too close to call
Claude 2.1: 21.4 (#221), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 21.2 (#225)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 119.27 | 119.49 |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 42.1% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1251 |
| DTBench | 51% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 49.9% |
| ForecastBench | 54.2 | — |
| HellaSwag | — | 83% |
| LiveBench | — | 46.2% |
| WinoGrande | — | 80.8% |
Math Qwen2.5-Coder-32B leads
Claude 2.1: 10.2 (#315), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.3 (#204)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 1.9% | — |
| LiveBench Math | — | 46.6% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1251 |
| GSM8K | — | 93% |
Knowledge Qwen2.5-Coder-32B leads
Claude 2.1: 15.4 (#292), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.4 (#203)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| MMLU | 73.5% | 79.1% |
| GPQA Diamond | 33% | — |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1221 |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 70.5% |
Multilingual Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 37.8 (#235)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1205 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1222 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1228 |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 61.4 (#245)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 58.7% |
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1223 |
Long Context Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 38.0 (#208)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1251 |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 41.6 (#240)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1230 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1174 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1222 |
| LiveBench Language | — | 23.3% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude 2.1 better than Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?
Qwen2.5-Coder-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.4 to 25.2 on the Noometry Index.
Is Claude 2.1 or Qwen2.5-Coder-32B better for coding?
Claude 2.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 26.2 versus 22.6 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Claude 2.1 and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B share?
2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude 2.1 has 7 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has 31.