Model comparison
Llama 3.2 90B vs Qwen1.5-14B
Qwen1.5-14B is the stronger model overall, scoring 32.1 to 27.1 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.
Meta
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. Llama 3.2 90B scores higher in 1 category and Qwen1.5-14B in 2 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen1.5-14B leads 29.9 to 10.4.
Side by side
| Llama 3.2 90B | Qwen1.5-14B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 27.1 | 32.1 |
| Released | 2024-09-24 | 2024-02-04 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 9 | 17 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
Llama 3.2 90B: —, Qwen1.5-14B: 32.5 (#259)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | — | 1138 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Llama 3.2 90B: 29.7 (#73), Qwen1.5-14B: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| BALROG | 27.3% | — |
Reasoning Too close to call
Llama 3.2 90B: 20.9 (#207), Qwen1.5-14B: 20.5 (#217)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| EnigmaEval | 0.4% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1113 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 125.5 | — |
Math Qwen1.5-14B leads
Llama 3.2 90B: 10.4 (#302), Qwen1.5-14B: 29.9 (#214)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 2.6% | — |
| LMArena Math | — | 1125 |
| MATH Level 5 | 39.4% | — |
Knowledge Qwen1.5-14B leads
Llama 3.2 90B: 21.7 (#269), Qwen1.5-14B: 29.3 (#230)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| MMLU | 80.3% | 68.6% |
| GPQA Diamond | 41% | — |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1094 |
Multimodal Not comparable
Llama 3.2 90B: 24.9 (#119), Qwen1.5-14B: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1000 | — |
| GeoBench | 52% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Llama 3.2 90B: —, Qwen1.5-14B: 30.8 (#257)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1095 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1147 |
| LMArena French | — | 1115 |
| LMArena German | — | 1043 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1019 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1046 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1085 |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Llama 3.2 90B: —, Qwen1.5-14B: 57.1 (#266)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1102 |
Long Context Not comparable
Llama 3.2 90B: —, Qwen1.5-14B: 33.7 (#252)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1113 |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Llama 3.2 90B: —, Qwen1.5-14B: 33.7 (#270)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1128 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1091 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1110 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Llama 3.2 90B better than Qwen1.5-14B?
Qwen1.5-14B is the stronger model overall, scoring 32.1 to 27.1 on the Noometry Index.
How many benchmarks do Llama 3.2 90B and Qwen1.5-14B share?
1 benchmark has published results for both models. Llama 3.2 90B has 9 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-14B has 17.