Noometry

Model comparison

Llama 2-70B vs Qwen3.7 Max

Qwen3.7 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.4 to 24.1 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 16 shared benchmarks.

Llama 2-70B Meta

24.1

Rank #343 Confirmed

Qwen3.7 Max Alibaba (Qwen)

51.4

Rank #35 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 2-70B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.7 Max in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.7 Max leads 62.3 to 7.5.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 0% for Llama 2-70B and 95.6% for Qwen3.7 Max.
  • Llama 2-70B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Llama 2-70BQwen3.7 Max
ProviderMetaAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index24.151.4
Released2023-07-182026-05-19
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window—1M
Max output—131K
Input $ / M tokens—$2.50
Output $ / M tokens—$7.50
Results tracked3533

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.7 Max leads

Llama 2-70B: 30.8 (#281), Qwen3.7 Max: 50.2 (#43)

BenchmarkLlama 2-70BQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Coding10791498
SWE-bench Verified—77.3%
LMArena WebDev—1515
SciCode—48.8%
ALE-Bench—1,189

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Llama 2-70B: —, Qwen3.7 Max: 21.8 (#129)

BenchmarkLlama 2-70BQwen3.7 Max
GBAEval—0.4%

Reasoning Qwen3.7 Max leads

Llama 2-70B: 13.7 (#324), Qwen3.7 Max: 48.4 (#36)

BenchmarkLlama 2-70BQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Hard Prompts10731483
DTBench41.6%92.3%
Epoch Capabilities Index113.59153.74
SimpleBench—70.4%
NYT Connections (extended)—85.1%
CritPt—13.4%
Chess Puzzles—19%
EBR-Bench—9.5%
Mystery Game Puzzles—32%
LMCA—44%
BIG-Bench Hard64.9%—
CommonsenseQA 2.050%—
ForecastBench51.4—
HellaSwag85.3%—
LAMBADA78.9%—
PIQA82.8%—
WinoGrande80.2%—

Math Qwen3.7 Max leads

Llama 2-70B: 7.5 (#320), Qwen3.7 Max: 62.3 (#26)

BenchmarkLlama 2-70BQwen3.7 Max
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-20250%95.6%
LMArena Math10911488
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—64.6%
FrontierMath Tier 4—34.1%
ProofBench—26%
MATH Level 53.3%—
GSM8K69.6%—

Knowledge Qwen3.7 Max leads

Llama 2-70B: 7.4 (#305), Qwen3.7 Max: 61.7 (#24)

BenchmarkLlama 2-70BQwen3.7 Max
GPQA Diamond26.3%90.9%
LMArena Expert10391488
SimpleQA Verified—55.8%
ARC (AI2) Challenge78.3%—
BoolQ88.6%—
MMLU69.9%—
OpenBookQA60.2%—
TriviaQA87.6%—

Multilingual Qwen3.7 Max leads

Llama 2-70B: 27.9 (#269), Qwen3.7 Max: 57.1 (#13)

BenchmarkLlama 2-70BQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Non-English10451475
LMArena Chinese9941533
LMArena Russian10831482
LMArena French1089—
LMArena German1041—
LMArena Japanese927—
LMArena Korean964—
LMArena Spanish1142—

Instruction Following Qwen3.7 Max leads

Llama 2-70B: 55.1 (#273), Qwen3.7 Max: 76.9 (#34)

BenchmarkLlama 2-70BQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Instruction Following10711460

Long Context Qwen3.7 Max leads

Llama 2-70B: 32.2 (#265), Qwen3.7 Max: 45.4 (#34)

BenchmarkLlama 2-70BQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Longer Query10621484

Writing & Preference Qwen3.7 Max leads

Llama 2-70B: 32.5 (#274), Qwen3.7 Max: 65.2 (#52)

BenchmarkLlama 2-70BQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Text11151476
LMArena Creative Writing10751450
LMArena Multi-Turn10881482
EQ-Bench 4—1110

Frequently asked questions

Is Llama 2-70B better than Qwen3.7 Max?

Qwen3.7 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.4 to 24.1 on the Noometry Index.

Is Llama 2-70B or Qwen3.7 Max better for coding?

Qwen3.7 Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.2 versus 30.8 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Llama 2-70B and Qwen3.7 Max share?

16 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 2-70B has 35 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Max has 33.

Related comparisons

Go deeper