Model comparison
Llama 3.2 90B vs Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 29.0 to 27.5 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 5 shared benchmarks.
Meta
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 5 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 3.2 90B scores higher in 3 categories and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct in 1 category; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Llama 3.2 90B leads 21.7 to 14.8.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is BALROG: 27.3% for Llama 3.2 90B and 7.8% for Qwen2.5 7B Instruct.
Side by side
| Llama 3.2 90B | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 27.5 | 29.0 |
| 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 | 9 | 15 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
Llama 3.2 90B: —, Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 36.5 (#208)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 37.6% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 46.1% |
Agentic & Tool Use Llama 3.2 90B leads
Llama 3.2 90B: 30.0 (#80), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 23.8 (#124)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| BALROG | 27.3% | 7.8% |
Reasoning Llama 3.2 90B leads
Llama 3.2 90B: 21.7 (#217), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 14.8 (#322)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 125.5 | 118.51 |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| EnigmaEval | 0.4% | — |
| DTBench | — | 47.7% |
| LMCA | — | 6.4% |
Math Qwen2.5 7B Instruct leads
Llama 3.2 90B: 11.1 (#308), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 12.6 (#306)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 2.6% | 2.5% |
| Omni-MATH | — | 29.4% |
| MATH Level 5 | 39.4% | — |
Knowledge Llama 3.2 90B leads
Llama 3.2 90B: 21.7 (#274), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 17.0 (#286)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 41% | 35.5% |
| MMLU | 80.3% | 72.9% |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 53.9% |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 34.1% |
Multimodal Not comparable
Llama 3.2 90B: 25.4 (#124), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1000 | — |
| GeoBench | 52% | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Llama 3.2 90B: —, Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 63.2 (#231)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| IFEval | — | 74.1% |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Llama 3.2 90B: —, Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 48.8 (#195)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| WildBench | — | 73.1% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Llama 3.2 90B better than Qwen2.5 7B Instruct?
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 29.0 to 27.5 on the Noometry Index.
How many benchmarks do Llama 3.2 90B and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct share?
5 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 3.2 90B has 9 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct has 15.