Model comparison

Llama 2-7B vs Qwen3.6 Plus

Qwen3.6 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.3 to 28.6 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.

Llama 2-7B Meta

28.6

Rank #315 Confirmed

Qwen3.6 Plus Alibaba (Qwen)

47.3

Rank #54 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 2-7B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.6 Plus in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen3.6 Plus leads 62.4 to 28.1.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is Chess Puzzles: 0% for Llama 2-7B and 17% for Qwen3.6 Plus.
  • Llama 2-7B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Llama 2-7B and Qwen3.6 Plus specifications
Llama 2-7BQwen3.6 Plus
ProviderMetaAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index28.647.3
Released2023-07-182026-03-31
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window—1M
Max output—66K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.50
Output $ / M tokens—$3
Results tracked2937

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.6 Plus leads

Llama 2-7B: 28.7 (#302), Qwen3.6 Plus: 40.6 (#125)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 2-7BQwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Coding10021467
SWE-bench Verified—57.9%
LMArena WebDev—1461
SciCode—40.7%
ALE-Bench—670.15

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Llama 2-7B: —, Qwen3.6 Plus: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 2-7BQwen3.6 Plus
Vending-Bench 2—5,115

Reasoning Qwen3.6 Plus leads

Llama 2-7B: 15.1 (#309), Qwen3.6 Plus: 28.5 (#89)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 2-7BQwen3.6 Plus
Chess Puzzles0%17%
LMArena Hard Prompts10091449
Epoch Capabilities Index98.54147.67
NYT Connections (extended)—60.3%
CritPt—2.9%
Thematic Generalization—59.5%
Mystery Game Puzzles—12%
DTBench—81.9%
LMCA—33.1%
BIG-Bench Hard39.2%—
HellaSwag77.2%—
LAMBADA73.3%—
PIQA78.8%—
WinoGrande69.2%—

Math Qwen3.6 Plus leads

Llama 2-7B: 28.2 (#231), Qwen3.6 Plus: 50.6 (#44)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 2-7BQwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Math10421450
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—38.2%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—93.3%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—26.2%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)—8.3%
GSM8K16.7%—

Knowledge Qwen3.6 Plus leads

Llama 2-7B: 27.7 (#243), Qwen3.6 Plus: 56.1 (#40)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 2-7BQwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Expert10361456
GPQA Diamond—88.4%
SimpleQA Verified—44.1%
ARC (AI2) Challenge45.9%—
BoolQ77.9%—
MMLU45.8%—
OpenBookQA58.6%—
TriviaQA73.7%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Llama 2-7B: —, Qwen3.6 Plus: —

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 2-7BQwen3.6 Plus
ScienceQA43.1%—

Multilingual Qwen3.6 Plus leads

Llama 2-7B: 23.9 (#288), Qwen3.6 Plus: 53.5 (#66)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 2-7BQwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Non-English9731424
LMArena Chinese9731478
LMArena French9691454
LMArena German9781451
LMArena Russian9951434
LMArena Spanish10071432
LMArena Japanese—1389
LMArena Korean—1381

Instruction Following Qwen3.6 Plus leads

Llama 2-7B: 51.0 (#293), Qwen3.6 Plus: 75.2 (#70)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 2-7BQwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Instruction Following10061425

Long Context Qwen3.6 Plus leads

Llama 2-7B: 30.4 (#282), Qwen3.6 Plus: 45.1 (#48)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 2-7BQwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Longer Query9991440
CL-bench—20.3%

Writing & Preference Qwen3.6 Plus leads

Llama 2-7B: 28.1 (#293), Qwen3.6 Plus: 62.4 (#78)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 2-7BQwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Text10531437
LMArena Creative Writing10331405
LMArena Multi-Turn10291438

Frequently asked questions

Is Llama 2-7B better than Qwen3.6 Plus?

Qwen3.6 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.3 to 28.6 on the Noometry Index.

Is Llama 2-7B or Qwen3.6 Plus better for coding?

Qwen3.6 Plus scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.6 versus 28.7 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Llama 2-7B and Qwen3.6 Plus share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 2-7B has 29 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Plus has 37.

Related comparisons

Go deeper