Noometry

Model comparison

GPT-4 Turbo vs Qwen1.5-72B

GPT-4 Turbo and Qwen1.5-72B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (30.5 vs 30.8), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Last verified . 22 shared benchmarks.

GPT-4 Turbo OpenAI

30.5

Rank #292 Confirmed

Qwen1.5-72B Alibaba (Qwen)

30.8

Rank #285 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 22 benchmarks with published results for both. GPT-4 Turbo scores higher in 6 categories and Qwen1.5-72B in 2 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Qwen1.5-72B leads 33.2 to 9.0.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is BigCodeBench Complete: 58.2% for GPT-4 Turbo and 40.3% for Qwen1.5-72B.
  • Qwen1.5-72B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GPT-4 TurboQwen1.5-72B
ProviderOpenAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index30.530.8
Released2023-11-062024-02-04
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window128K—
Max output4K—
Input $ / M tokens$10—
Output $ / M tokens$30—
Results tracked3622

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

Category by category

Coding GPT-4 Turbo leads

GPT-4 Turbo: 33.8 (#249), Qwen1.5-72B: 31.9 (#277)

BenchmarkGPT-4 TurboQwen1.5-72B
BigCodeBench Instruct48.2%33.2%
LMArena Coding12681165
BigCodeBench Complete58.2%40.3%
HumanEval+86.6%59.1%
MBPP+73.3%61.6%
WeirdML18%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GPT-4 Turbo: —, Qwen1.5-72B: —

BenchmarkGPT-4 TurboQwen1.5-72B
METR Time Horizons36.7%—

Reasoning Qwen1.5-72B leads

GPT-4 Turbo: 15.3 (#317), Qwen1.5-72B: 22.2 (#203)

BenchmarkGPT-4 TurboQwen1.5-72B
LMArena Hard Prompts12511148
SimpleBench25.1%—
Chess Puzzles6%—
DTBench61.6%—
LMCA9.8%—
Epoch Capabilities Index127.25—
ForecastBench59.4—

Math Qwen1.5-72B leads

GPT-4 Turbo: 9.0 (#322), Qwen1.5-72B: 33.2 (#205)

BenchmarkGPT-4 TurboQwen1.5-72B
LMArena Math12721164
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)0.7%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-20256.7%—
MATH Level 546.7%—

Knowledge GPT-4 Turbo leads

GPT-4 Turbo: 24.3 (#268), Qwen1.5-72B: 11.5 (#300)

BenchmarkGPT-4 TurboQwen1.5-72B
GPQA Diamond46.6%28.8%
LMArena Expert12231136
Confabulations28.4%—
MMLU81.3%—

Multimodal Not comparable

GPT-4 Turbo: 30.6 (#110), Qwen1.5-72B: —

BenchmarkGPT-4 TurboQwen1.5-72B
LMArena Vision1090—

Multilingual GPT-4 Turbo leads

GPT-4 Turbo: 40.5 (#216), Qwen1.5-72B: 33.2 (#253)

BenchmarkGPT-4 TurboQwen1.5-72B
LMArena Non-English12451135
LMArena Chinese12421186
LMArena French12761159
LMArena German12591084
LMArena Japanese11941061
LMArena Korean11871050
LMArena Russian12591104
LMArena Spanish12601110

Instruction Following GPT-4 Turbo leads

GPT-4 Turbo: 65.8 (#216), Qwen1.5-72B: 59.3 (#256)

BenchmarkGPT-4 TurboQwen1.5-72B
LMArena Instruction Following12491141

Long Context GPT-4 Turbo leads

GPT-4 Turbo: 38.0 (#206), Qwen1.5-72B: 35.1 (#243)

BenchmarkGPT-4 TurboQwen1.5-72B
LMArena Longer Query12541157

Writing & Preference GPT-4 Turbo leads

GPT-4 Turbo: 47.7 (#206), Qwen1.5-72B: 37.3 (#258)

BenchmarkGPT-4 TurboQwen1.5-72B
LMArena Text12721166
LMArena Creative Writing12691137
LMArena Multi-Turn12671160

Frequently asked questions

Is GPT-4 Turbo better than Qwen1.5-72B?

GPT-4 Turbo and Qwen1.5-72B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (30.5 vs 30.8), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Is GPT-4 Turbo or Qwen1.5-72B better for coding?

GPT-4 Turbo scores higher on coding benchmarks: 33.8 versus 31.9 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do GPT-4 Turbo and Qwen1.5-72B share?

22 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-4 Turbo has 36 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-72B has 22.

Related comparisons

Go deeper