Model comparison

Codellama 34b Instruct vs Qwen2.5-Max

Qwen2.5-Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.7 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 10 shared benchmarks.

Codellama 34b Instruct Meta

30.8

Rank #287 Confirmed

Qwen2.5-Max Alibaba (Qwen)

40.7

Rank #146 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 10 benchmarks with published results for both. Codellama 34b Instruct scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen2.5-Max in 7 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen2.5-Max leads 55.4 to 28.2.
  • Codellama 34b Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Codellama 34b Instruct and Qwen2.5-Max specifications
Codellama 34b InstructQwen2.5-Max
ProviderMetaAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index30.840.7
Released—2025-01-25
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window——
Max output——
Input $ / M tokens——
Output $ / M tokens——
Results tracked1427

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen2.5-Max leads

Codellama 34b Instruct: 28.5 (#314), Qwen2.5-Max: 41.8 (#117)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkCodellama 34b InstructQwen2.5-Max
LMArena Coding10461359
BigCodeBench Instruct29%—
LiveBench Coding—64.4%
BigCodeBench Complete37.1%—
HumanEval+43.9%—
MBPP+56.3%—

Reasoning Qwen2.5-Max leads

Codellama 34b Instruct: 19.6 (#255), Qwen2.5-Max: 25.6 (#147)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkCodellama 34b InstructQwen2.5-Max
LMArena Hard Prompts10321360
LiveBench Reasoning—51.4%
LiveBench Data Analysis—67.9%
Epoch Capabilities Index—132.53
LiveBench—62.3%

Math Qwen2.5-Max leads

Codellama 34b Instruct: 31.0 (#230), Qwen2.5-Max: 36.9 (#162)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkCodellama 34b InstructQwen2.5-Max
LMArena Math10561369
LiveBench Math—58.4%

Knowledge Not comparable

Codellama 34b Instruct: —, Qwen2.5-Max: 35.3 (#186)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkCodellama 34b InstructQwen2.5-Max
Confabulations—21.8%
LMArena Expert—1337

Multilingual Qwen2.5-Max leads

Codellama 34b Instruct: 25.8 (#284), Qwen2.5-Max: 48.1 (#146)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkCodellama 34b InstructQwen2.5-Max
LMArena Non-English10111352
LMArena Chinese9761382
LMArena French—1396
LMArena German—1350
LMArena Japanese—1300
LMArena Korean—1304
LMArena Russian—1353
LMArena Spanish—1377

Instruction Following Qwen2.5-Max leads

Codellama 34b Instruct: 52.2 (#291), Qwen2.5-Max: 71.3 (#152)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkCodellama 34b InstructQwen2.5-Max
LMArena Instruction Following10281335
LiveBench Instruction Following—75.3%

Long Context Qwen2.5-Max leads

Codellama 34b Instruct: 30.9 (#284), Qwen2.5-Max: 41.4 (#142)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkCodellama 34b InstructQwen2.5-Max
LMArena Longer Query10131358

Writing & Preference Qwen2.5-Max leads

Codellama 34b Instruct: 28.2 (#297), Qwen2.5-Max: 55.4 (#146)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkCodellama 34b InstructQwen2.5-Max
LMArena Text10661367
LMArena Creative Writing10321339
LMArena Multi-Turn10151364
Short-Story Creative Writing—72.9%
LiveBench Language—56.3%

Frequently asked questions

Is Codellama 34b Instruct better than Qwen2.5-Max?

Qwen2.5-Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.7 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.

Is Codellama 34b Instruct or Qwen2.5-Max better for coding?

Qwen2.5-Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.8 versus 28.5 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Codellama 34b Instruct and Qwen2.5-Max share?

10 benchmarks have published results for both models. Codellama 34b Instruct has 14 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Max has 27.

Related comparisons

Go deeper