Model comparison
Llama 2-70B vs Qwen3.6 27B
Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.2 to 24.4 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 4 shared benchmarks.
Meta
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 4 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 2-70B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.6 27B in 5 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.6 27B leads 52.4 to 7.4.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 0% for Llama 2-70B and 91.1% for Qwen3.6 27B.
Side by side
| Llama 2-70B | Qwen3.6 27B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 24.4 | 42.2 |
| Released | 2023-07-18 | 2026-04-22 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | 262K |
| Max output | — | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.60 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $3.60 |
| Results tracked | 35 | 11 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.6 27B leads
Llama 2-70B: 31.4 (#286), Qwen3.6 27B: 39.1 (#163)
| Benchmark | Llama 2-70B | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | — | 37.3% |
| LMArena Coding | 1079 | — |
Reasoning Qwen3.6 27B leads
Llama 2-70B: 14.4 (#325), Qwen3.6 27B: 25.0 (#153)
| Benchmark | Llama 2-70B | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| DTBench | 41.6% | 78.1% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 113.79 | 146.5 |
| CritPt | — | 0.9% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 22% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1073 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 7% |
| LMCA | — | 34.5% |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 64.9% | — |
| CommonsenseQA 2.0 | 50% | — |
| ForecastBench | 51.4 | — |
| HellaSwag | 85.3% | — |
| LAMBADA | 78.9% | — |
| PIQA | 82.8% | — |
| WinoGrande | 80.2% | — |
Math Qwen3.6 27B leads
Llama 2-70B: 8.1 (#326), Qwen3.6 27B: 48.5 (#62)
| Benchmark | Llama 2-70B | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 0% | 91.1% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 35.1% |
| LMArena Math | 1091 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 3.3% | — |
| GSM8K | 69.6% | — |
Knowledge Qwen3.6 27B leads
Llama 2-70B: 7.4 (#310), Qwen3.6 27B: 52.4 (#63)
| Benchmark | Llama 2-70B | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 26.3% | 85.9% |
| LMArena Expert | 1039 | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 78.3% | — |
| BoolQ | 88.6% | — |
| MMLU | 69.9% | — |
| OpenBookQA | 60.2% | — |
| TriviaQA | 87.6% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Llama 2-70B: 27.7 (#274), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | Llama 2-70B | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1045 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 995 | — |
| LMArena French | 1090 | — |
| LMArena German | 1041 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 927 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 964 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1083 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1143 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Llama 2-70B: 54.9 (#278), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | Llama 2-70B | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1071 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Llama 2-70B: 32.3 (#270), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | Llama 2-70B | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1062 | — |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.6 27B leads
Llama 2-70B: 32.3 (#279), Qwen3.6 27B: 50.3 (#181)
| Benchmark | Llama 2-70B | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1115 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1075 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1026 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1088 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Llama 2-70B better than Qwen3.6 27B?
Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.2 to 24.4 on the Noometry Index.
Is Llama 2-70B or Qwen3.6 27B better for coding?
Qwen3.6 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.1 versus 31.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Llama 2-70B and Qwen3.6 27B share?
4 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 2-70B has 35 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 27B has 11.