Model comparison

Llama 3.1-405B vs Qwen2.5 Plus 1127

Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 30.7 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 14 shared benchmarks.

Llama 3.1-405B Meta

30.7

Rank #288 Confirmed

Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 Alibaba (Qwen)

38.8

Rank #181 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 3.1-405B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 in 8 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads 36.1 to 18.4.
  • Llama 3.1-405B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Llama 3.1-405B and Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 specifications
Llama 3.1-405BQwen2.5 Plus 1127
ProviderMetaAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index30.738.8
Released2024-07-23—
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window——
Max output——
Input $ / M tokens——
Output $ / M tokens——
Results tracked4214

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads

Llama 3.1-405B: 33.1 (#262), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 38.5 (#175)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.1-405BQwen2.5 Plus 1127
LMArena Coding12911314
WeirdML21.4%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Llama 3.1-405B: 21.0 (#140), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.1-405BQwen2.5 Plus 1127
TheAgentCompany7.4%—
Cybench7.5%—

Reasoning Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads

Llama 3.1-405B: 16.8 (#300), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 25.9 (#141)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.1-405BQwen2.5 Plus 1127
LMArena Hard Prompts12691299
SimpleBench23%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark45%—
DTBench61.4%—
BIG-Bench Hard82.9%—
Epoch Capabilities Index128.75—
ForecastBench59.9—
HellaSwag89.2%—
PIQA85.9%—
WinoGrande89.2%—

Math Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads

Llama 3.1-405B: 18.4 (#290), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 36.1 (#174)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.1-405BQwen2.5 Plus 1127
LMArena Math12811298
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-20259.7%—
Omni-MATH24.9%—
MATH Level 549.8%—

Knowledge Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads

Llama 3.1-405B: 30.4 (#227), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 35.5 (#183)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.1-405BQwen2.5 Plus 1127
LMArena Expert12431289
GPQA Diamond50.9%—
MMLU-Pro72.3%—
Confabulations17.6%—
GPQA (HELM)52.2%—
ARC (AI2) Challenge95.3%—
MMLU84.5%—
TriviaQA82.7%—

Multilingual Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads

Llama 3.1-405B: 40.7 (#214), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 41.9 (#201)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.1-405BQwen2.5 Plus 1127
LMArena Non-English12481265
LMArena Chinese12421314
LMArena German12521231
LMArena Japanese12081207
LMArena Russian12651271
LMArena French1279—
LMArena Korean1184—
LMArena Spanish1260—

Instruction Following Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads

Llama 3.1-405B: 65.9 (#214), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 67.2 (#199)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.1-405BQwen2.5 Plus 1127
LMArena Instruction Following12591275
IFEval81.1%—

Long Context Too close to call

Llama 3.1-405B: 38.4 (#197), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 39.2 (#184)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.1-405BQwen2.5 Plus 1127
LMArena Longer Query12661292

Writing & Preference Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads

Llama 3.1-405B: 38.9 (#251), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 49.4 (#192)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.1-405BQwen2.5 Plus 1127
LMArena Text12841299
LMArena Creative Writing12621262
LMArena Multi-Turn12971299
EQ-Bench Creative Writing870—
WildBench78.3%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Llama 3.1-405B better than Qwen2.5 Plus 1127?

Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 30.7 on the Noometry Index.

Is Llama 3.1-405B or Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 better for coding?

Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.5 versus 33.1 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Llama 3.1-405B and Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 share?

14 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 3.1-405B has 42 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 has 14.

Related comparisons

Go deeper