Model comparison
Llama 3.2 11B vs Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct has enough public results to be ranked (#314); Llama 3.2 11B does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.
Meta
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 3.2 11B scores higher in 1 category and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct in 0 categories; one gap is clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in agentic & tool use, where Llama 3.2 11B leads 27.0 to 23.5.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is BALROG: 16.8% for Llama 3.2 11B and 7.8% for Qwen2.5 7B Instruct.
Side by side
| Llama 3.2 11B | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 31.6 | 28.6 |
| Released | 2024-09-24 | 2024-09 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | 131K |
| Max output | — | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.17 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $0.70 |
| Results tracked | 3 | 15 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
Llama 3.2 11B: —, Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 35.9 (#204)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 11B | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 37.6% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 46.1% |
Agentic & Tool Use Llama 3.2 11B leads
Llama 3.2 11B: 27.0, Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 23.5 (#117)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 11B | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| BALROG | 16.8% | 7.8% |
Reasoning Not comparable
Llama 3.2 11B: —, Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 14.3 (#317)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 11B | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| DTBench | — | 47.7% |
| LMCA | — | 6.4% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 118.44 |
Math Not comparable
Llama 3.2 11B: —, Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 11.8 (#300)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 11B | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 2.5% |
| Omni-MATH | — | 29.4% |
Knowledge Not comparable
Llama 3.2 11B: —, Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 17.0 (#281)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 11B | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| MMLU | 56.5% | 72.9% |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 35.5% |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 53.9% |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 34.1% |
Multimodal Not comparable
Llama 3.2 11B: 23.8, Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 11B | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 966 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Llama 3.2 11B: —, Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 63.4 (#226)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 11B | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| IFEval | — | 74.1% |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Llama 3.2 11B: —, Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 48.8 (#194)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 11B | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| WildBench | — | 73.1% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Llama 3.2 11B better than Qwen2.5 7B Instruct?
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct has enough public results to be ranked (#314); Llama 3.2 11B does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
How many benchmarks do Llama 3.2 11B and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct share?
2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 3.2 11B has 3 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct has 15.