Model comparison
Llama 13b vs Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
Qwen2.5 32B Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 30.1 to 24.4 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.
Meta
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. Llama 13b scores higher in 1 category and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct in 2 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in coding, where Qwen2.5 32B Instruct leads 38.7 to 21.4.
Side by side
| Llama 13b | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 24.4 | 30.1 |
| Released | 2023-02-24 | 2024-09 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | 131K |
| Max output | — | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.70 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $2.80 |
| Results tracked | 21 | 7 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen2.5 32B Instruct leads
Llama 13b: 21.4 (#337), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 38.7 (#169)
| Benchmark | Llama 13b | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 45% |
| LMArena Coding | 683 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 52.3% |
Reasoning Qwen2.5 32B Instruct leads
Llama 13b: 14.0 (#329), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 19.2 (#266)
| Benchmark | Llama 13b | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 100.58 | 128.52 |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 728 | — |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 37.9% | — |
| HellaSwag | 79.2% | — |
| LAMBADA | 75.2% | — |
| PIQA | 80.1% | — |
| WinoGrande | 73% | — |
Math Llama 13b leads
Llama 13b: 26.7 (#256), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 16.2 (#296)
| Benchmark | Llama 13b | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 7.4% |
| LMArena Math | 838 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 56.1% |
| GSM8K | 20.6% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Llama 13b: —, Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 24.9 (#266)
| Benchmark | Llama 13b | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 46.1% |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 52.7% | — |
| BoolQ | 78.7% | — |
| MMLU | 47.7% | — |
| OpenBookQA | 56.4% | — |
| TriviaQA | 77.9% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Llama 13b: —, Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Llama 13b | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| ScienceQA | 43.3% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Llama 13b: 16.6 (#297), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Llama 13b | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 819 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Llama 13b: 36.7 (#305), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Llama 13b | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 781 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Llama 13b: 13.8 (#312), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Llama 13b | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 834 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 794 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 753 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Llama 13b better than Qwen2.5 32B Instruct?
Qwen2.5 32B Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 30.1 to 24.4 on the Noometry Index.
Is Llama 13b or Qwen2.5 32B Instruct better for coding?
Qwen2.5 32B Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.7 versus 21.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Llama 13b and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct share?
1 benchmark has published results for both models. Llama 13b has 21 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct has 7.