Noometry

Model comparison

Llama 2-7B vs Qwen3.7 Max

Qwen3.7 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.5 to 29.1 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 14 shared benchmarks.

Llama 2-7B Meta

29.1

Rank #317 Confirmed

Qwen3.7 Max Alibaba (Qwen)

51.5

Rank #42 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 2-7B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.7 Max in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen3.7 Max leads 65.0 to 28.0.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is Chess Puzzles: 0% for Llama 2-7B and 19% for Qwen3.7 Max.
  • Llama 2-7B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Llama 2-7BQwen3.7 Max
ProviderMetaAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index29.151.5
Released2023-07-182026-05-19
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window—1M
Max output—131K
Input $ / M tokens—$2.50
Output $ / M tokens—$7.50
Results tracked2933

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.7 Max leads

Llama 2-7B: 29.2 (#307), Qwen3.7 Max: 50.4 (#45)

BenchmarkLlama 2-7BQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Coding10021498
SWE-bench Verified—77.3%
LMArena WebDev—1515
SciCode—48.8%
ALE-Bench—1,189

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Llama 2-7B: —, Qwen3.7 Max: 22.1 (#135)

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

Reasoning Qwen3.7 Max leads

Llama 2-7B: 15.7 (#312), Qwen3.7 Max: 49.2 (#38)

BenchmarkLlama 2-7BQwen3.7 Max
Chess Puzzles0%19%
LMArena Hard Prompts10091483
Epoch Capabilities Index99.06153.68
SimpleBench—70.4%
NYT Connections (extended)—85.1%
CritPt—13.4%
EBR-Bench—9.5%
Mystery Game Puzzles—32%
DTBench—92.3%
LMCA—44%
BIG-Bench Hard39.2%—
HellaSwag77.2%—
LAMBADA73.3%—
PIQA78.8%—
WinoGrande69.2%—

Math Qwen3.7 Max leads

Llama 2-7B: 30.7 (#233), Qwen3.7 Max: 62.4 (#32)

BenchmarkLlama 2-7BQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Math10421490
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—64.6%
FrontierMath Tier 4—34.1%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—95.6%
ProofBench—26%
GSM8K16.7%—

Knowledge Qwen3.7 Max leads

Llama 2-7B: 28.2 (#248), Qwen3.7 Max: 61.6 (#28)

BenchmarkLlama 2-7BQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Expert10361488
GPQA Diamond—90.9%
SimpleQA Verified—55.8%
ARC (AI2) Challenge45.9%—
BoolQ77.9%—
MMLU45.8%—
OpenBookQA58.6%—
TriviaQA73.7%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Llama 2-7B: —, Qwen3.7 Max: —

BenchmarkLlama 2-7BQwen3.7 Max
ScienceQA43.1%—

Multilingual Qwen3.7 Max leads

Llama 2-7B: 23.8 (#293), Qwen3.7 Max: 56.9 (#15)

BenchmarkLlama 2-7BQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Non-English9731474
LMArena Chinese9731530
LMArena Russian9951484
LMArena French970—
LMArena German978—
LMArena Spanish1007—

Instruction Following Qwen3.7 Max leads

Llama 2-7B: 50.8 (#298), Qwen3.7 Max: 76.7 (#38)

BenchmarkLlama 2-7BQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Instruction Following10061460

Long Context Qwen3.7 Max leads

Llama 2-7B: 30.4 (#287), Qwen3.7 Max: 45.4 (#40)

BenchmarkLlama 2-7BQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Longer Query9991482

Writing & Preference Qwen3.7 Max leads

Llama 2-7B: 28.0 (#298), Qwen3.7 Max: 65.0 (#54)

BenchmarkLlama 2-7BQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Text10531476
LMArena Creative Writing10331449
LMArena Multi-Turn10291481
EQ-Bench 4—1110

Frequently asked questions

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

Qwen3.7 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.5 to 29.1 on the Noometry Index.

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

Qwen3.7 Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.4 versus 29.2 in the Noometry coding category.

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

14 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 2-7B has 29 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Max has 33.

Related comparisons

Go deeper