Model comparison

Llama 3.1-405B vs Qwen2.5 14B Instruct

Llama 3.1-405B has enough public results to be ranked (#288); Qwen2.5 14B Instruct does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.

Llama 3.1-405B Meta

30.7

Rank #288 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. Llama 3.1-405B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen2.5 14B Instruct in 1 category; one gap is clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in coding, where Qwen2.5 14B Instruct leads 37.7 to 33.1.

Side by side

Llama 3.1-405B and Qwen2.5 14B Instruct specifications
Llama 3.1-405BQwen2.5 14B Instruct
ProviderMetaAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index30.738.7
Released2024-07-232024-09
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window—131K
Max output—8K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.35
Output $ / M tokens—$1.40
Results tracked423

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen2.5 14B Instruct leads

Llama 3.1-405B: 33.1 (#262), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: 37.7 (#191)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.1-405BQwen2.5 14B Instruct
WeirdML21.4%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—39.8%
LMArena Coding1291—
BigCodeBench Complete—52.2%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Llama 3.1-405B: 21.0 (#140), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.1-405BQwen2.5 14B Instruct
TheAgentCompany7.4%—
Cybench7.5%—

Reasoning Not comparable

Llama 3.1-405B: 16.8 (#300), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.1-405BQwen2.5 14B Instruct
SimpleBench23%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark45%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1269—
DTBench61.4%—
BIG-Bench Hard82.9%—
Epoch Capabilities Index128.75—
ForecastBench59.9—
HellaSwag89.2%—
PIQA85.9%—
WinoGrande89.2%—

Math Not comparable

Llama 3.1-405B: 18.4 (#290), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.1-405BQwen2.5 14B Instruct
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-20259.7%—
Omni-MATH24.9%—
LMArena Math1281—
MATH Level 549.8%—

Knowledge Not comparable

Llama 3.1-405B: 30.4 (#227), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.1-405BQwen2.5 14B Instruct
MMLU84.5%79.9%
GPQA Diamond50.9%—
MMLU-Pro72.3%—
Confabulations17.6%—
GPQA (HELM)52.2%—
LMArena Expert1243—
ARC (AI2) Challenge95.3%—
TriviaQA82.7%—

Multilingual Not comparable

Llama 3.1-405B: 40.7 (#214), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.1-405BQwen2.5 14B Instruct
LMArena Non-English1248—
LMArena Chinese1242—
LMArena French1279—
LMArena German1252—
LMArena Japanese1208—
LMArena Korean1184—
LMArena Russian1265—
LMArena Spanish1260—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Llama 3.1-405B: 65.9 (#214), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.1-405BQwen2.5 14B Instruct
IFEval81.1%—
LMArena Instruction Following1259—

Long Context Not comparable

Llama 3.1-405B: 38.4 (#197), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.1-405BQwen2.5 14B Instruct
LMArena Longer Query1266—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Llama 3.1-405B: 38.9 (#251), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.1-405BQwen2.5 14B Instruct
LMArena Text1284—
LMArena Creative Writing1262—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing870—
WildBench78.3%—
LMArena Multi-Turn1297—

Frequently asked questions

Is Llama 3.1-405B better than Qwen2.5 14B Instruct?

Llama 3.1-405B has enough public results to be ranked (#288); Qwen2.5 14B Instruct does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Is Llama 3.1-405B or Qwen2.5 14B Instruct better for coding?

Qwen2.5 14B Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.7 versus 33.1 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Llama 3.1-405B and Qwen2.5 14B Instruct share?

1 benchmark has published results for both models. Llama 3.1-405B has 42 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 14B Instruct has 3.

Related comparisons

Go deeper