Model comparison

Llama 3.1-70B vs Qwen2.5-Max

Qwen2.5-Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.7 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.

Llama 3.1-70B Meta

29.6

Rank #308 Confirmed

Qwen2.5-Max Alibaba (Qwen)

40.7

Rank #146 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 3.1-70B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen2.5-Max in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Qwen2.5-Max leads 36.9 to 13.5.
  • Llama 3.1-70B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Llama 3.1-70B and Qwen2.5-Max specifications
Llama 3.1-70BQwen2.5-Max
ProviderMetaAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index29.640.7
Released2024-07-232025-01-25
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window128K—
Max output4K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.40—
Output $ / M tokens$0.40—
Results tracked3527

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen2.5-Max leads

Llama 3.1-70B: 30.3 (#296), Qwen2.5-Max: 41.8 (#117)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.1-70BQwen2.5-Max
LMArena Coding12601359
WeirdML9%—
BigCodeBench Instruct46.1%—
LiveBench Coding—64.4%
BigCodeBench Complete54.8%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

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

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.1-70BQwen2.5-Max
TheAgentCompany6.9%—
BALROG27.9%—

Reasoning Qwen2.5-Max leads

Llama 3.1-70B: 21.6 (#220), Qwen2.5-Max: 25.6 (#147)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.1-70BQwen2.5-Max
LMArena Hard Prompts12411360
Epoch Capabilities Index125.92132.53
LiveBench Reasoning—51.4%
DTBench60%—
LiveBench Data Analysis—67.9%
LMCA14.8%—
LiveBench—62.3%

Math Qwen2.5-Max leads

Llama 3.1-70B: 13.5 (#304), Qwen2.5-Max: 36.9 (#162)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.1-70BQwen2.5-Max
LMArena Math12521369
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-20253.6%—
Omni-MATH21%—
LiveBench Math—58.4%
MATH Level 536.7%—

Knowledge Qwen2.5-Max leads

Llama 3.1-70B: 24.2 (#269), Qwen2.5-Max: 35.3 (#186)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.1-70BQwen2.5-Max
LMArena Expert12091337
GPQA Diamond44.2%—
MMLU-Pro65.3%—
Confabulations—21.8%
GPQA (HELM)42.6%—
MMLU80.1%—

Multilingual Qwen2.5-Max leads

Llama 3.1-70B: 38.8 (#225), Qwen2.5-Max: 48.1 (#146)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.1-70BQwen2.5-Max
LMArena Non-English12191352
LMArena Chinese12151382
LMArena French12611396
LMArena German12221350
LMArena Japanese11321300
LMArena Korean11401304
LMArena Russian12341353
LMArena Spanish12531377

Instruction Following Qwen2.5-Max leads

Llama 3.1-70B: 65.3 (#223), Qwen2.5-Max: 71.3 (#152)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.1-70BQwen2.5-Max
LMArena Instruction Following12311335
LiveBench Instruction Following—75.3%
IFEval82.1%—

Long Context Qwen2.5-Max leads

Llama 3.1-70B: 37.6 (#214), Qwen2.5-Max: 41.4 (#142)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.1-70BQwen2.5-Max
LMArena Longer Query12411358

Writing & Preference Qwen2.5-Max leads

Llama 3.1-70B: 35.4 (#267), Qwen2.5-Max: 55.4 (#146)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.1-70BQwen2.5-Max
LMArena Text12611367
LMArena Creative Writing12321339
LMArena Multi-Turn12561364
Short-Story Creative Writing—72.9%
EQ-Bench Creative Writing784—
WildBench75.8%—
LiveBench Language—56.3%

Frequently asked questions

Is Llama 3.1-70B better than Qwen2.5-Max?

Qwen2.5-Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.7 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.

Is Llama 3.1-70B or Qwen2.5-Max better for coding?

Qwen2.5-Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.8 versus 30.3 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Llama 3.1-70B and Qwen2.5-Max share?

18 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 3.1-70B has 35 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Max has 27.

Related comparisons

Go deeper