Noometry

Model comparison

DBRX vs Qwen2.5-Max

Qwen2.5-Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.7 to 29.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.

DBRX Databricks

29.4

Rank #311 Confirmed

Qwen2.5-Max Alibaba (Qwen)

40.7

Rank #146 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. DBRX scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen2.5-Max in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen2.5-Max leads 55.4 to 33.6.
  • DBRX has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

DBRXQwen2.5-Max
ProviderDatabricksAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index29.440.7
Released2024-03-272025-01-25
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window——
Max output——
Input $ / M tokens——
Output $ / M tokens——
Results tracked2127

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen2.5-Max leads

DBRX: 32.9 (#266), Qwen2.5-Max: 41.8 (#117)

BenchmarkDBRXQwen2.5-Max
LMArena Coding11321359
LiveBench Coding—64.4%
HumanEval+70.1%—
MBPP+55.8%—

Reasoning Qwen2.5-Max leads

DBRX: 21.4 (#222), Qwen2.5-Max: 25.6 (#147)

BenchmarkDBRXQwen2.5-Max
LMArena Hard Prompts11131360
LiveBench Reasoning—51.4%
LiveBench Data Analysis—67.9%
Epoch Capabilities Index—132.53
LiveBench—62.3%

Math Qwen2.5-Max leads

DBRX: 24.3 (#269), Qwen2.5-Max: 36.9 (#162)

BenchmarkDBRXQwen2.5-Max
LMArena Math11451369
LiveBench Math—58.4%
MATH Level 511.7%—

Knowledge Qwen2.5-Max leads

DBRX: 14.9 (#294), Qwen2.5-Max: 35.3 (#186)

BenchmarkDBRXQwen2.5-Max
LMArena Expert10761337
GPQA Diamond32.9%—
Confabulations—21.8%

Multilingual Qwen2.5-Max leads

DBRX: 29.3 (#268), Qwen2.5-Max: 48.1 (#146)

BenchmarkDBRXQwen2.5-Max
LMArena Non-English10711352
LMArena Chinese10681382
LMArena French10961396
LMArena German10571350
LMArena Japanese9901300
LMArena Korean9931304
LMArena Russian10781353
LMArena Spanish10641377

Instruction Following Qwen2.5-Max leads

DBRX: 57.5 (#270), Qwen2.5-Max: 71.3 (#152)

BenchmarkDBRXQwen2.5-Max
LMArena Instruction Following11121335
LiveBench Instruction Following—75.3%

Long Context Qwen2.5-Max leads

DBRX: 33.7 (#258), Qwen2.5-Max: 41.4 (#142)

BenchmarkDBRXQwen2.5-Max
LMArena Longer Query11121358

Writing & Preference Qwen2.5-Max leads

DBRX: 33.6 (#275), Qwen2.5-Max: 55.4 (#146)

BenchmarkDBRXQwen2.5-Max
LMArena Text11191367
LMArena Creative Writing11041339
LMArena Multi-Turn11111364
Short-Story Creative Writing—72.9%
LiveBench Language—56.3%

Frequently asked questions

Is DBRX better than Qwen2.5-Max?

Qwen2.5-Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.7 to 29.4 on the Noometry Index.

Is DBRX or Qwen2.5-Max better for coding?

Qwen2.5-Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.8 versus 32.9 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do DBRX and Qwen2.5-Max share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. DBRX has 21 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Max has 27.

Related comparisons

Go deeper