Model comparison

Llama 3.1-70B vs Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B)

Llama 3.1-70B has enough public results to be ranked (#308); Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B) does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.

Llama 3.1-70B Meta

29.6

Rank #308 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both.

Side by side

Llama 3.1-70B and Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B) specifications
Llama 3.1-70BQwen2.5-Coder (1.5B)
ProviderMetaAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index29.6—
Released2024-07-232024-09-18
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window128K—
Max output4K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.40—
Output $ / M tokens$0.40—
Results tracked356

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

Llama 3.1-70B: 30.3 (#296), Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B): —

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.1-70BQwen2.5-Coder (1.5B)
WeirdML9%—
BigCodeBench Instruct46.1%—
LMArena Coding1260—
BigCodeBench Complete54.8%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Llama 3.1-70B: 25.1 (#112), Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B): —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.1-70BQwen2.5-Coder (1.5B)
TheAgentCompany6.9%—
BALROG27.9%—

Reasoning Not comparable

Llama 3.1-70B: 21.6 (#220), Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B): —

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.1-70BQwen2.5-Coder (1.5B)
Epoch Capabilities Index125.92113.14
LMArena Hard Prompts1241—
DTBench60%—
LMCA14.8%—
HellaSwag—76.8%
WinoGrande—72.9%

Math Not comparable

Llama 3.1-70B: 13.5 (#304), Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B): —

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.1-70BQwen2.5-Coder (1.5B)
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-20253.6%—
Omni-MATH21%—
LMArena Math1252—
MATH Level 536.7%—
GSM8K—86.7%

Knowledge Not comparable

Llama 3.1-70B: 24.2 (#269), Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B): —

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.1-70BQwen2.5-Coder (1.5B)
MMLU80.1%68%
GPQA Diamond44.2%—
MMLU-Pro65.3%—
GPQA (HELM)42.6%—
LMArena Expert1209—
ARC (AI2) Challenge—60.9%

Multilingual Not comparable

Llama 3.1-70B: 38.8 (#225), Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B): —

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.1-70BQwen2.5-Coder (1.5B)
LMArena Non-English1219—
LMArena Chinese1215—
LMArena French1261—
LMArena German1222—
LMArena Japanese1132—
LMArena Korean1140—
LMArena Russian1234—
LMArena Spanish1253—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Llama 3.1-70B: 65.3 (#223), Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B): —

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.1-70BQwen2.5-Coder (1.5B)
IFEval82.1%—
LMArena Instruction Following1231—

Long Context Not comparable

Llama 3.1-70B: 37.6 (#214), Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B): —

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.1-70BQwen2.5-Coder (1.5B)
LMArena Longer Query1241—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Llama 3.1-70B: 35.4 (#267), Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B): —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.1-70BQwen2.5-Coder (1.5B)
LMArena Text1261—
LMArena Creative Writing1232—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing784—
WildBench75.8%—
LMArena Multi-Turn1256—

Frequently asked questions

Is Llama 3.1-70B better than Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B)?

Llama 3.1-70B has enough public results to be ranked (#308); Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B) does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

How many benchmarks do Llama 3.1-70B and Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B) share?

2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 3.1-70B has 35 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Coder (1.5B) has 6.

Related comparisons

Go deeper