Model comparison
Llama 3.2 90B vs Qwen1.5-110B
Qwen1.5-110B is the stronger model overall, scoring 34.2 to 27.5 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Meta
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen1.5-110B leads 33.7 to 11.1.
Side by side
| Llama 3.2 90B | Qwen1.5-110B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 27.5 | 34.2 |
| Released | 2024-09-24 | 2024-04-25 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 9 | 20 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
Llama 3.2 90B: —, Qwen1.5-110B: 33.0 (#264)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 35% |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1184 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 44.4% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Llama 3.2 90B: 30.0 (#80), Qwen1.5-110B: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| BALROG | 27.3% | — |
Reasoning Too close to call
Llama 3.2 90B: 21.7 (#217), Qwen1.5-110B: 22.7 (#189)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| EnigmaEval | 0.4% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1168 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 125.5 | — |
| ForecastBench | — | 57.7 |
Math Qwen1.5-110B leads
Llama 3.2 90B: 11.1 (#308), Qwen1.5-110B: 33.7 (#201)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 2.6% | — |
| LMArena Math | — | 1185 |
| MATH Level 5 | 39.4% | — |
Knowledge Qwen1.5-110B leads
Llama 3.2 90B: 21.7 (#274), Qwen1.5-110B: 31.2 (#219)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 41% | — |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1144 |
| MMLU | 80.3% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Llama 3.2 90B: 25.4 (#124), Qwen1.5-110B: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1000 | — |
| GeoBench | 52% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Llama 3.2 90B: —, Qwen1.5-110B: 33.6 (#250)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1142 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1206 |
| LMArena French | — | 1151 |
| LMArena German | — | 1123 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1074 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1044 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1118 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1142 |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Llama 3.2 90B: —, Qwen1.5-110B: 60.3 (#252)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1158 |
Long Context Not comparable
Llama 3.2 90B: —, Qwen1.5-110B: 35.1 (#242)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1157 |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Llama 3.2 90B: —, Qwen1.5-110B: 38.0 (#255)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1175 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1148 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1160 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Llama 3.2 90B better than Qwen1.5-110B?
Qwen1.5-110B is the stronger model overall, scoring 34.2 to 27.5 on the Noometry Index.
How many benchmarks do Llama 3.2 90B and Qwen1.5-110B share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 3.2 90B has 9 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-110B has 20.