Model comparison
Llama 13b vs Qwen2.5-Max
Qwen2.5-Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.7 to 24.4 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 9 shared benchmarks.
Meta
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 9 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 13b scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen2.5-Max in 6 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen2.5-Max leads 55.4 to 13.8.
- Llama 13b has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Llama 13b | Qwen2.5-Max | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 24.4 | 40.7 |
| Released | 2023-02-24 | 2025-01-25 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 21 | 27 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen2.5-Max leads
Llama 13b: 21.4 (#337), Qwen2.5-Max: 41.8 (#117)
| Benchmark | Llama 13b | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 683 | 1359 |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 64.4% |
Reasoning Qwen2.5-Max leads
Llama 13b: 14.0 (#329), Qwen2.5-Max: 25.6 (#147)
| Benchmark | Llama 13b | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 728 | 1360 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 100.58 | 132.53 |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 51.4% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 67.9% |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 37.9% | — |
| HellaSwag | 79.2% | — |
| LAMBADA | 75.2% | — |
| LiveBench | — | 62.3% |
| PIQA | 80.1% | — |
| WinoGrande | 73% | — |
Math Qwen2.5-Max leads
Llama 13b: 26.7 (#256), Qwen2.5-Max: 36.9 (#162)
| Benchmark | Llama 13b | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 838 | 1369 |
| LiveBench Math | — | 58.4% |
| GSM8K | 20.6% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Llama 13b: —, Qwen2.5-Max: 35.3 (#186)
| Benchmark | Llama 13b | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| Confabulations | — | 21.8% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1337 |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 52.7% | — |
| BoolQ | 78.7% | — |
| MMLU | 47.7% | — |
| OpenBookQA | 56.4% | — |
| TriviaQA | 77.9% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Llama 13b: —, Qwen2.5-Max: —
| Benchmark | Llama 13b | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| ScienceQA | 43.3% | — |
Multilingual Qwen2.5-Max leads
Llama 13b: 16.6 (#297), Qwen2.5-Max: 48.1 (#146)
| Benchmark | Llama 13b | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 819 | 1352 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1382 |
| LMArena French | — | 1396 |
| LMArena German | — | 1350 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1300 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1304 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1353 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1377 |
Instruction Following Qwen2.5-Max leads
Llama 13b: 36.7 (#305), Qwen2.5-Max: 71.3 (#152)
| Benchmark | Llama 13b | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 781 | 1335 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 75.3% |
Long Context Not comparable
Llama 13b: —, Qwen2.5-Max: 41.4 (#142)
| Benchmark | Llama 13b | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1358 |
Writing & Preference Qwen2.5-Max leads
Llama 13b: 13.8 (#312), Qwen2.5-Max: 55.4 (#146)
| Benchmark | Llama 13b | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 834 | 1367 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 794 | 1339 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 753 | 1364 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 72.9% |
| LiveBench Language | — | 56.3% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Llama 13b better than Qwen2.5-Max?
Qwen2.5-Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.7 to 24.4 on the Noometry Index.
Is Llama 13b or Qwen2.5-Max better for coding?
Qwen2.5-Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.8 versus 21.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Llama 13b and Qwen2.5-Max share?
9 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 13b has 21 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Max has 27.