Model comparison
Llama 2-7B vs Qwen2.5-Max
Qwen2.5-Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.7 to 29.1 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 16 shared benchmarks.
Meta
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 2-7B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen2.5-Max in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen2.5-Max leads 55.4 to 28.0.
- Llama 2-7B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Llama 2-7B | Qwen2.5-Max | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 29.1 | 40.7 |
| Released | 2023-07-18 | 2025-01-25 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 29 | 27 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen2.5-Max leads
Llama 2-7B: 29.2 (#307), Qwen2.5-Max: 41.8 (#117)
| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1002 | 1359 |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 64.4% |
Reasoning Qwen2.5-Max leads
Llama 2-7B: 15.7 (#312), Qwen2.5-Max: 25.6 (#147)
| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1009 | 1360 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 99.06 | 132.53 |
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 51.4% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 67.9% |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 39.2% | — |
| HellaSwag | 77.2% | — |
| LAMBADA | 73.3% | — |
| LiveBench | — | 62.3% |
| PIQA | 78.8% | — |
| WinoGrande | 69.2% | — |
Math Qwen2.5-Max leads
Llama 2-7B: 30.7 (#233), Qwen2.5-Max: 36.9 (#162)
| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1042 | 1369 |
| LiveBench Math | — | 58.4% |
| GSM8K | 16.7% | — |
Knowledge Qwen2.5-Max leads
Llama 2-7B: 28.2 (#248), Qwen2.5-Max: 35.3 (#186)
| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1036 | 1337 |
| Confabulations | — | 21.8% |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 45.9% | — |
| BoolQ | 77.9% | — |
| MMLU | 45.8% | — |
| OpenBookQA | 58.6% | — |
| TriviaQA | 73.7% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Llama 2-7B: —, Qwen2.5-Max: —
| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| ScienceQA | 43.1% | — |
Multilingual Qwen2.5-Max leads
Llama 2-7B: 23.8 (#293), Qwen2.5-Max: 48.1 (#146)
| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 973 | 1352 |
| LMArena Chinese | 973 | 1382 |
| LMArena French | 970 | 1396 |
| LMArena German | 978 | 1350 |
| LMArena Russian | 995 | 1353 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1007 | 1377 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1300 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1304 |
Instruction Following Qwen2.5-Max leads
Llama 2-7B: 50.8 (#298), Qwen2.5-Max: 71.3 (#152)
| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1006 | 1335 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 75.3% |
Long Context Qwen2.5-Max leads
Llama 2-7B: 30.4 (#287), Qwen2.5-Max: 41.4 (#142)
| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 999 | 1358 |
Writing & Preference Qwen2.5-Max leads
Llama 2-7B: 28.0 (#298), Qwen2.5-Max: 55.4 (#146)
| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1053 | 1367 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1033 | 1339 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1029 | 1364 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 72.9% |
| LiveBench Language | — | 56.3% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Llama 2-7B better than Qwen2.5-Max?
Qwen2.5-Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.7 to 29.1 on the Noometry Index.
Is Llama 2-7B or Qwen2.5-Max better for coding?
Qwen2.5-Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.8 versus 29.2 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Llama 2-7B and Qwen2.5-Max share?
16 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 2-7B has 29 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Max has 27.