Noometry

Model comparison

Llama 3.1 Nemotron 51b Instruct vs Qwen2.5-Coder-32B

Llama 3.1 Nemotron 51b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 35.9 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.

Llama 3.1 Nemotron 51b Instruct NVIDIA

35.9

Rank #222 Confirmed

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B Alibaba (Qwen)

33.4

Rank #245 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 3.1 Nemotron 51b Instruct scores higher in 5 categories and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B in 3 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in coding, where Llama 3.1 Nemotron 51b Instruct leads 35.6 to 22.6.

Side by side

Llama 3.1 Nemotron 51b InstructQwen2.5-Coder-32B
ProviderNVIDIAAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index35.933.4
Released—2024-09-18
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window—33K
Max output—29K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.66
Output $ / M tokens—$1
Results tracked1231

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

Category by category

Coding Llama 3.1 Nemotron 51b Instruct leads

Llama 3.1 Nemotron 51b Instruct: 35.6 (#222), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 22.6 (#333)

BenchmarkLlama 3.1 Nemotron 51b InstructQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Coding12231276
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)—9%
Aider Polyglot—16.4%
BigCodeBench Instruct—49%
LiveBench Coding—56.9%
BigCodeBench Complete—58%
HumanEval+—87.2%
MBPP+—77%

Reasoning Llama 3.1 Nemotron 51b Instruct leads

Llama 3.1 Nemotron 51b Instruct: 23.5 (#177), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 21.2 (#225)

BenchmarkLlama 3.1 Nemotron 51b InstructQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Hard Prompts12031251
LiveBench Reasoning—42.1%
LiveBench Data Analysis—49.9%
Epoch Capabilities Index—119.49
HellaSwag—83%
LiveBench—46.2%
WinoGrande—80.8%

Math Llama 3.1 Nemotron 51b Instruct leads

Llama 3.1 Nemotron 51b Instruct: 34.6 (#193), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.3 (#204)

BenchmarkLlama 3.1 Nemotron 51b InstructQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Math12301251
LiveBench Math—46.6%
GSM8K—93%

Knowledge Qwen2.5-Coder-32B leads

Llama 3.1 Nemotron 51b Instruct: 31.9 (#218), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.4 (#203)

BenchmarkLlama 3.1 Nemotron 51b InstructQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Expert11671221
ARC (AI2) Challenge—70.5%
MMLU—79.1%

Multilingual Qwen2.5-Coder-32B leads

Llama 3.1 Nemotron 51b Instruct: 36.1 (#241), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 37.8 (#235)

BenchmarkLlama 3.1 Nemotron 51b InstructQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Non-English11811205
LMArena Chinese11801222
LMArena Russian11871228

Instruction Following Llama 3.1 Nemotron 51b Instruct leads

Llama 3.1 Nemotron 51b Instruct: 62.9 (#233), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 61.4 (#245)

BenchmarkLlama 3.1 Nemotron 51b InstructQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Instruction Following12011223
LiveBench Instruction Following—58.7%

Long Context Qwen2.5-Coder-32B leads

Llama 3.1 Nemotron 51b Instruct: 36.5 (#230), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 38.0 (#208)

BenchmarkLlama 3.1 Nemotron 51b InstructQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Longer Query12051251

Writing & Preference Llama 3.1 Nemotron 51b Instruct leads

Llama 3.1 Nemotron 51b Instruct: 43.4 (#229), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 41.6 (#240)

BenchmarkLlama 3.1 Nemotron 51b InstructQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Text12281230
LMArena Creative Writing12131174
LMArena Multi-Turn12271222
LiveBench Language—23.3%

Frequently asked questions

Is Llama 3.1 Nemotron 51b Instruct better than Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?

Llama 3.1 Nemotron 51b Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 35.9 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index.

Is Llama 3.1 Nemotron 51b Instruct or Qwen2.5-Coder-32B better for coding?

Llama 3.1 Nemotron 51b Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 35.6 versus 22.6 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Llama 3.1 Nemotron 51b Instruct and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B share?

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 3.1 Nemotron 51b Instruct has 12 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has 31.

Related comparisons

Go deeper