Model comparison
Llama 3.2 90B vs Qwen-14B
Qwen-14B is the stronger model overall, scoring 30.8 to 27.1 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.
Meta
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 3.2 90B scores higher in 1 category and Qwen-14B in 1 category; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen-14B leads 28.7 to 10.4.
Side by side
| Llama 3.2 90B | Qwen-14B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 27.1 | 30.8 |
| Released | 2024-09-24 | 2023-09-24 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 9 | 18 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
Llama 3.2 90B: —, Qwen-14B: 30.6 (#283)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | — | 1072 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Llama 3.2 90B: 29.7 (#73), Qwen-14B: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| BALROG | 27.3% | — |
Reasoning Llama 3.2 90B leads
Llama 3.2 90B: 20.9 (#207), Qwen-14B: 18.7 (#255)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 125.5 | 112.8 |
| EnigmaEval | 0.4% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1027 |
| BIG-Bench Hard | — | 55% |
| LAMBADA | — | 71.1% |
| PIQA | — | 79.9% |
Math Qwen-14B leads
Llama 3.2 90B: 10.4 (#302), Qwen-14B: 28.7 (#224)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 2.6% | — |
| LMArena Math | — | 1068 |
| MATH Level 5 | 39.4% | — |
| GSM8K | — | 61.3% |
Knowledge Not comparable
Llama 3.2 90B: 21.7 (#269), Qwen-14B: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| MMLU | 80.3% | 66.3% |
| GPQA Diamond | 41% | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 84.4% |
| BoolQ | — | 86.2% |
Multimodal Not comparable
Llama 3.2 90B: 24.9 (#119), Qwen-14B: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1000 | — |
| GeoBench | 52% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Llama 3.2 90B: —, Qwen-14B: 27.7 (#270)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1042 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1077 |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Llama 3.2 90B: —, Qwen-14B: 52.6 (#284)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1031 |
Long Context Not comparable
Llama 3.2 90B: —, Qwen-14B: 31.3 (#276)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1029 |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Llama 3.2 90B: —, Qwen-14B: 27.8 (#294)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1051 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1028 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1022 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Llama 3.2 90B better than Qwen-14B?
Qwen-14B is the stronger model overall, scoring 30.8 to 27.1 on the Noometry Index.
How many benchmarks do Llama 3.2 90B and Qwen-14B share?
2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 3.2 90B has 9 scored results on Noometry and Qwen-14B has 18.