Model comparison
Llama 2-13B vs Qwen3 32B
Qwen3 32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.2 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 16 shared benchmarks.
Meta
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 2-13B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3 32B in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen3 32B leads 52.9 to 29.8.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is DTBench: 42.2% for Llama 2-13B and 67.5% for Qwen3 32B.
Side by side
| Llama 2-13B | Qwen3 32B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 29.6 | 39.2 |
| Released | 2023-07-18 | 2025-04 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | 131K |
| Max output | — | 16K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.70 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $2.80 |
| Results tracked | 32 | 26 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3 32B leads
Llama 2-13B: 30.9 (#291), Qwen3 32B: 37.7 (#190)
| Benchmark | Llama 2-13B | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1062 | 1358 |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 40% |
| SciCode | — | 35.4% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Llama 2-13B: —, Qwen3 32B: 32.6 (#62)
| Benchmark | Llama 2-13B | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 48.7% |
Reasoning Qwen3 32B leads
Llama 2-13B: 12.8 (#337), Qwen3 32B: 20.2 (#241)
| Benchmark | Llama 2-13B | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | 5% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1051 | 1334 |
| DTBench | 42.2% | 67.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 106.17 | 138.51 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 54.9% |
| CritPt | — | 0.3% |
| LMCA | — | 17.3% |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 58.2% | — |
| HellaSwag | 80.7% | — |
| LAMBADA | 76.5% | — |
| PIQA | 80.8% | — |
| WinoGrande | 72.8% | — |
Math Qwen3 32B leads
Llama 2-13B: 31.1 (#229), Qwen3 32B: 39.7 (#99)
| Benchmark | Llama 2-13B | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1065 | 1399 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 66.9% |
| GSM8K | 36.9% | — |
Knowledge Qwen3 32B leads
Llama 2-13B: 28.1 (#249), Qwen3 32B: 40.0 (#125)
| Benchmark | Llama 2-13B | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1030 | 1362 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 65.7% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 5.9% |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 60.3% | — |
| BoolQ | 82.4% | — |
| MMLU | 55.6% | — |
| OpenBookQA | 57% | — |
| TriviaQA | 79.6% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Llama 2-13B: —, Qwen3 32B: —
| Benchmark | Llama 2-13B | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| ScienceQA | 55.8% | — |
Multilingual Qwen3 32B leads
Llama 2-13B: 26.5 (#279), Qwen3 32B: 45.6 (#167)
| Benchmark | Llama 2-13B | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1024 | 1317 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1001 | 1357 |
| LMArena German | 1009 | 1341 |
| LMArena Russian | 1055 | 1311 |
| LMArena French | 1044 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 894 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 953 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1087 | — |
Instruction Following Qwen3 32B leads
Llama 2-13B: 53.3 (#287), Qwen3 32B: 68.9 (#179)
| Benchmark | Llama 2-13B | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1045 | 1305 |
Long Context Qwen3 32B leads
Llama 2-13B: 32.3 (#269), Qwen3 32B: 43.8 (#87)
| Benchmark | Llama 2-13B | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1064 | 1327 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 74.2% |
Writing & Preference Qwen3 32B leads
Llama 2-13B: 29.8 (#289), Qwen3 32B: 52.9 (#163)
| Benchmark | Llama 2-13B | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1084 | 1340 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1047 | 1297 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1050 | 1331 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Llama 2-13B better than Qwen3 32B?
Qwen3 32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.2 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.
Is Llama 2-13B or Qwen3 32B better for coding?
Qwen3 32B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.7 versus 30.9 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Llama 2-13B and Qwen3 32B share?
16 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 2-13B has 32 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 32B has 26.