Model comparison
Llama 3.2 90B vs Qwen1.5-32B
Qwen1.5-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 30.5 to 27.5 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 Qwen1.5-32B in 2 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen1.5-32B leads 33.0 to 11.1.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 41% for Llama 3.2 90B and 30.7% for Qwen1.5-32B.
Side by side
| Llama 3.2 90B | Qwen1.5-32B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 27.5 | 30.5 |
| Released | 2024-09-24 | 2024-02-04 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 9 | 21 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
Llama 3.2 90B: —, Qwen1.5-32B: 31.7 (#282)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 32.3% |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1155 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 42% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Llama 3.2 90B: 30.0 (#80), Qwen1.5-32B: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| BALROG | 27.3% | — |
Reasoning Too close to call
Llama 3.2 90B: 21.7 (#217), Qwen1.5-32B: 21.8 (#212)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| EnigmaEval | 0.4% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1130 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 125.5 | — |
Math Qwen1.5-32B leads
Llama 3.2 90B: 11.1 (#308), Qwen1.5-32B: 33.0 (#207)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 2.6% | — |
| LMArena Math | — | 1155 |
| MATH Level 5 | 39.4% | — |
Knowledge Llama 3.2 90B leads
Llama 3.2 90B: 21.7 (#274), Qwen1.5-32B: 13.5 (#296)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 41% | 30.7% |
| MMLU | 80.3% | 74.4% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1126 |
Multimodal Not comparable
Llama 3.2 90B: 25.4 (#124), Qwen1.5-32B: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1000 | — |
| GeoBench | 52% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Llama 3.2 90B: —, Qwen1.5-32B: 31.4 (#259)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1106 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1177 |
| LMArena French | — | 1101 |
| LMArena German | — | 1058 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1027 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1008 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1073 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1089 |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Llama 3.2 90B: —, Qwen1.5-32B: 57.7 (#265)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1116 |
Long Context Not comparable
Llama 3.2 90B: —, Qwen1.5-32B: 34.7 (#246)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1146 |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Llama 3.2 90B: —, Qwen1.5-32B: 34.2 (#271)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Qwen1.5-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1137 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1083 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1140 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Llama 3.2 90B better than Qwen1.5-32B?
Qwen1.5-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 30.5 to 27.5 on the Noometry Index.
How many benchmarks do Llama 3.2 90B and Qwen1.5-32B share?
2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 3.2 90B has 9 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-32B has 21.