Model comparison

Llama 13b vs Qwen3.5 27B

Qwen3.5 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.9 to 24.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 8 shared benchmarks.

Llama 13b Meta

24.4

Rank #348 Confirmed

Qwen3.5 27B Alibaba (Qwen)

41.9

Rank #127 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 8 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 13b scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.5 27B in 6 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen3.5 27B leads 59.3 to 13.8.

Side by side

Llama 13b and Qwen3.5 27B specifications
Llama 13bQwen3.5 27B
ProviderMetaAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index24.441.9
Released2023-02-242026-02-23
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window—262K
Max output—66K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.30
Output $ / M tokens—$2.40
Results tracked2128

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.5 27B leads

Llama 13b: 21.4 (#337), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.9 (#168)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 13bQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Coding6831427
LMArena WebDev—1358
WeirdML—39.5%
ALE-Bench—349.45

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Llama 13b: —, Qwen3.5 27B: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 13bQwen3.5 27B
Vending-Bench 2—201.98

Reasoning Qwen3.5 27B leads

Llama 13b: 14.0 (#329), Qwen3.5 27B: 27.5 (#117)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 13bQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Hard Prompts7281414
NYT Connections (extended)—47.9%
Thematic Generalization—45.5%
DTBench—82.4%
LMCA—34%
BIG-Bench Hard37.9%—
Epoch Capabilities Index100.58—
HellaSwag79.2%—
LAMBADA75.2%—
PIQA80.1%—
WinoGrande73%—

Math Qwen3.5 27B leads

Llama 13b: 26.7 (#256), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.8 (#127)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 13bQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Math8381429
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions—56.7%
GSM8K20.6%—

Knowledge Not comparable

Llama 13b: —, Qwen3.5 27B: 38.0 (#150)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 13bQwen3.5 27B
Vectara Hallucination Rate—12.1%
LMArena Expert—1428
ARC (AI2) Challenge52.7%—
BoolQ78.7%—
MMLU47.7%—
OpenBookQA56.4%—
TriviaQA77.9%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Llama 13b: —, Qwen3.5 27B: 39.4 (#59)

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 13bQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Vision—1241
ScienceQA43.3%—

Multilingual Qwen3.5 27B leads

Llama 13b: 16.6 (#297), Qwen3.5 27B: 50.8 (#115)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 13bQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Non-English8191390
LMArena Chinese—1478
LMArena French—1410
LMArena German—1393
LMArena Japanese—1345
LMArena Korean—1358
LMArena Russian—1390
LMArena Spanish—1407

Instruction Following Qwen3.5 27B leads

Llama 13b: 36.7 (#305), Qwen3.5 27B: 73.5 (#119)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 13bQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Instruction Following7811393

Long Context Not comparable

Llama 13b: —, Qwen3.5 27B: 43.1 (#106)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 13bQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Longer Query—1413

Writing & Preference Qwen3.5 27B leads

Llama 13b: 13.8 (#312), Qwen3.5 27B: 59.3 (#111)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 13bQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Text8341409
LMArena Creative Writing7941362
LMArena Multi-Turn7531410

Frequently asked questions

Is Llama 13b better than Qwen3.5 27B?

Qwen3.5 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.9 to 24.4 on the Noometry Index.

Is Llama 13b or Qwen3.5 27B better for coding?

Qwen3.5 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.9 versus 21.4 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Llama 13b and Qwen3.5 27B share?

8 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 13b has 21 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5 27B has 28.

Related comparisons

Go deeper