Noometry

Model comparison

Claude 3 Opus vs Qwen2.5 14B Instruct

Claude 3 Opus has enough public results to be ranked (#310); Qwen2.5 14B Instruct does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Last verified . 3 shared benchmarks.

Claude 3 Opus Anthropic

29.5

Rank #310 Confirmed

Qwen2.5 14B Instruct Alibaba (Qwen)

38.7

Unranked Sparse

Summary

  • They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude 3 Opus scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen2.5 14B Instruct in 1 category; one gap is clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in coding, where Qwen2.5 14B Instruct leads 37.7 to 32.9.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is BigCodeBench Instruct: 45.5% for Claude 3 Opus and 39.8% for Qwen2.5 14B Instruct.
  • Qwen2.5 14B Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude 3 OpusQwen2.5 14B Instruct
ProviderAnthropicAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index29.538.7
Released2024-02-292024-09
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window—131K
Max output—8K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.35
Output $ / M tokens—$1.40
Results tracked463

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Qwen2.5 14B Instruct leads

Claude 3 Opus: 32.9 (#267), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: 37.7 (#191)

BenchmarkClaude 3 OpusQwen2.5 14B Instruct
BigCodeBench Instruct45.5%39.8%
BigCodeBench Complete57.4%52.2%
WeirdML19.2%—
LiveBench Coding38.6%—
LMArena Coding1264—
HumanEval+77.4%—
MBPP+73.3%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Claude 3 Opus: 24.6 (#116), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —

BenchmarkClaude 3 OpusQwen2.5 14B Instruct
Cybench10%—
METR Time Horizons29.5%—

Reasoning Not comparable

Claude 3 Opus: 14.6 (#324), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —

BenchmarkClaude 3 OpusQwen2.5 14B Instruct
SimpleBench23.5%—
Chess Puzzles5%—
EnigmaEval0.8%—
LiveBench Reasoning40.6%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1245—
DTBench61.6%—
LiveBench Data Analysis57.9%—
LMCA17%—
Epoch Capabilities Index126.91—
ForecastBench58.4—
LiveBench49.2%—
WinoGrande88.5%—

Math Not comparable

Claude 3 Opus: 14.8 (#299), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —

BenchmarkClaude 3 OpusQwen2.5 14B Instruct
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-20254.7%—
LiveBench Math43.6%—
LMArena Math1273—
MATH Level 537.5%—

Knowledge Not comparable

Claude 3 Opus: 24.5 (#267), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —

BenchmarkClaude 3 OpusQwen2.5 14B Instruct
MMLU84.6%79.9%
GPQA Diamond47.2%—
SimpleQA Verified12.6%—
Confabulations22.7%—
LMArena Expert1223—

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude 3 Opus: 27.1 (#116), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —

BenchmarkClaude 3 OpusQwen2.5 14B Instruct
LMArena Vision1023—

Multilingual Not comparable

Claude 3 Opus: 41.4 (#207), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —

BenchmarkClaude 3 OpusQwen2.5 14B Instruct
LMArena Non-English1258—
LMArena Chinese1248—
LMArena French1275—
LMArena German1258—
LMArena Japanese1204—
LMArena Korean1187—
LMArena Russian1280—
LMArena Spanish1246—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Claude 3 Opus: 64.1 (#228), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —

BenchmarkClaude 3 OpusQwen2.5 14B Instruct
LiveBench Instruction Following63.9%—
LMArena Instruction Following1248—

Long Context Not comparable

Claude 3 Opus: 38.2 (#202), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —

BenchmarkClaude 3 OpusQwen2.5 14B Instruct
LMArena Longer Query1259—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Claude 3 Opus: 47.2 (#213), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —

BenchmarkClaude 3 OpusQwen2.5 14B Instruct
LMArena Text1262—
LMArena Creative Writing1235—
LMArena Multi-Turn1275—
LiveBench Language50.4%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude 3 Opus better than Qwen2.5 14B Instruct?

Claude 3 Opus has enough public results to be ranked (#310); Qwen2.5 14B Instruct does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Is Claude 3 Opus or Qwen2.5 14B Instruct better for coding?

Qwen2.5 14B Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.7 versus 32.9 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Claude 3 Opus and Qwen2.5 14B Instruct share?

3 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude 3 Opus has 46 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 14B Instruct has 3.

Related comparisons

Go deeper