Model comparison
DeepSeek LLM 67B vs Qwen1.5 4b Chat
Qwen1.5 4b Chat is the stronger model overall, scoring 28.8 to 24.9 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 10 shared benchmarks.
DeepSeek
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 10 benchmarks with published results for both. DeepSeek LLM 67B scores higher in 5 categories and Qwen1.5 4b Chat in 3 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen1.5 4b Chat leads 30.4 to 8.7.
Side by side
| DeepSeek LLM 67B | Qwen1.5 4b Chat | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | DeepSeek | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 24.9 | 28.8 |
| Released | 2023-11-29 | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 15 | 13 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding DeepSeek LLM 67B leads
DeepSeek LLM 67B: 31.9 (#278), Qwen1.5 4b Chat: 29.1 (#308)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek LLM 67B | Qwen1.5 4b Chat |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1096 | 999 |
Reasoning Qwen1.5 4b Chat leads
DeepSeek LLM 67B: 16.5 (#304), Qwen1.5 4b Chat: 18.5 (#279)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek LLM 67B | Qwen1.5 4b Chat |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1070 | 976 |
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 110.5 | — |
Math Qwen1.5 4b Chat leads
DeepSeek LLM 67B: 8.7 (#324), Qwen1.5 4b Chat: 30.4 (#234)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek LLM 67B | Qwen1.5 4b Chat |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1108 | 1026 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 0.8% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 6.4% | — |
Knowledge Qwen1.5 4b Chat leads
DeepSeek LLM 67B: 7.0 (#313), Qwen1.5 4b Chat: 26.7 (#255)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek LLM 67B | Qwen1.5 4b Chat |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 24.6% | — |
| LMArena Expert | — | 980 |
Multilingual DeepSeek LLM 67B leads
DeepSeek LLM 67B: 29.4 (#267), Qwen1.5 4b Chat: 24.1 (#290)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek LLM 67B | Qwen1.5 4b Chat |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1073 | 979 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1132 | 1024 |
| LMArena German | — | 902 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 952 |
Instruction Following DeepSeek LLM 67B leads
DeepSeek LLM 67B: 55.4 (#277), Qwen1.5 4b Chat: 49.0 (#300)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek LLM 67B | Qwen1.5 4b Chat |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1079 | 978 |
Long Context DeepSeek LLM 67B leads
DeepSeek LLM 67B: 33.1 (#265), Qwen1.5 4b Chat: 30.1 (#290)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek LLM 67B | Qwen1.5 4b Chat |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1092 | 988 |
Writing & Preference DeepSeek LLM 67B leads
DeepSeek LLM 67B: 31.6 (#282), Qwen1.5 4b Chat: 23.8 (#309)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek LLM 67B | Qwen1.5 4b Chat |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1105 | 997 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1067 | 969 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1082 | 977 |
Frequently asked questions
Is DeepSeek LLM 67B better than Qwen1.5 4b Chat?
Qwen1.5 4b Chat is the stronger model overall, scoring 28.8 to 24.9 on the Noometry Index.
Is DeepSeek LLM 67B or Qwen1.5 4b Chat better for coding?
DeepSeek LLM 67B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 31.9 versus 29.1 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do DeepSeek LLM 67B and Qwen1.5 4b Chat share?
10 benchmarks have published results for both models. DeepSeek LLM 67B has 15 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5 4b Chat has 13.