Model comparison
Llama 3.2 90B vs Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
Qwen2.5-Coder-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.4 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 Qwen2.5-Coder-32B in 2 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen2.5-Coder-32B leads 33.3 to 11.1.
Side by side
| Llama 3.2 90B | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 27.5 | 33.4 |
| Released | 2024-09-24 | 2024-09-18 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | 33K |
| Max output | — | 29K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.66 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $1 |
| Results tracked | 9 | 31 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
Llama 3.2 90B: —, Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 22.6 (#333)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | — | 9% |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 16.4% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 49% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 56.9% |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1276 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 58% |
| HumanEval+ | — | 87.2% |
| MBPP+ | — | 77% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Llama 3.2 90B: 30.0 (#80), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| BALROG | 27.3% | — |
Reasoning Too close to call
Llama 3.2 90B: 21.7 (#217), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 21.2 (#225)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 125.5 | 119.49 |
| EnigmaEval | 0.4% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 42.1% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1251 |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 49.9% |
| HellaSwag | — | 83% |
| LiveBench | — | 46.2% |
| WinoGrande | — | 80.8% |
Math Qwen2.5-Coder-32B leads
Llama 3.2 90B: 11.1 (#308), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.3 (#204)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 2.6% | — |
| LiveBench Math | — | 46.6% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1251 |
| MATH Level 5 | 39.4% | — |
| GSM8K | — | 93% |
Knowledge Qwen2.5-Coder-32B leads
Llama 3.2 90B: 21.7 (#274), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.4 (#203)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| MMLU | 80.3% | 79.1% |
| GPQA Diamond | 41% | — |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1221 |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 70.5% |
Multimodal Not comparable
Llama 3.2 90B: 25.4 (#124), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1000 | — |
| GeoBench | 52% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Llama 3.2 90B: —, Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 37.8 (#235)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1205 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1222 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1228 |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Llama 3.2 90B: —, Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 61.4 (#245)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 58.7% |
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1223 |
Long Context Not comparable
Llama 3.2 90B: —, Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 38.0 (#208)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1251 |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Llama 3.2 90B: —, Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 41.6 (#240)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 90B | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1230 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1174 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1222 |
| LiveBench Language | — | 23.3% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Llama 3.2 90B better than Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?
Qwen2.5-Coder-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.4 to 27.5 on the Noometry Index.
How many benchmarks do Llama 3.2 90B and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B share?
2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 3.2 90B has 9 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has 31.