Noometry

Model comparison

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning vs Qwen2.5 7B Instruct

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.0 to 29.0 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning NVIDIA

40.0

Rank #155 Confirmed

Qwen2.5 7B Instruct Alibaba (Qwen)

29.0

Rank #320 Confirmed

Summary

  • The widest gap is in math, where Nemotron 3.5 Lightning leads 37.5 to 12.6.
  • Nemotron 3.5 Lightning is cheaper at $0.05 / $0.20 per million input/output tokens, against $0.17 / $0.70 for Qwen2.5 7B Instruct.
  • Nemotron 3.5 Lightning accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 131K.

Side by side

Nemotron 3.5 LightningQwen2.5 7B Instruct
ProviderNVIDIAAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index40.029.0
Released2026-08-112024-09
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window262K131K
Max output262K8K
Input $ / M tokens$0.05$0.17
Output $ / M tokens$0.20$0.70
Results tracked1815

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Nemotron 3.5 Lightning leads

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning: 40.4 (#141), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 36.5 (#208)

BenchmarkNemotron 3.5 LightningQwen2.5 7B Instruct
BigCodeBench Instruct—37.6%
LMArena Coding1375—
BigCodeBench Complete—46.1%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning: —, Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 23.8 (#124)

BenchmarkNemotron 3.5 LightningQwen2.5 7B Instruct
BALROG—7.8%

Reasoning Nemotron 3.5 Lightning leads

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning: 26.8 (#127), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 14.8 (#322)

BenchmarkNemotron 3.5 LightningQwen2.5 7B Instruct
Chess Puzzles—0%
LMArena Hard Prompts1337—
DTBench—47.7%
LMCA—6.4%
Epoch Capabilities Index—118.51

Math Nemotron 3.5 Lightning leads

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning: 37.5 (#155), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 12.6 (#306)

BenchmarkNemotron 3.5 LightningQwen2.5 7B Instruct
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—2.5%
Omni-MATH—29.4%
LMArena Math1359—

Knowledge Nemotron 3.5 Lightning leads

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning: 37.5 (#154), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 17.0 (#286)

BenchmarkNemotron 3.5 LightningQwen2.5 7B Instruct
GPQA Diamond—35.5%
MMLU-Pro—53.9%
GPQA (HELM)—34.1%
LMArena Expert1356—
MMLU—72.9%

Multilingual Not comparable

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning: 44.0 (#180), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: —

BenchmarkNemotron 3.5 LightningQwen2.5 7B Instruct
LMArena Non-English1295—
LMArena Chinese1359—
LMArena French1366—
LMArena German1282—
LMArena Japanese1206—
LMArena Korean1238—
LMArena Russian1253—
LMArena Spanish1345—

Instruction Following Nemotron 3.5 Lightning leads

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning: 69.6 (#170), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 63.2 (#231)

BenchmarkNemotron 3.5 LightningQwen2.5 7B Instruct
IFEval—74.1%
LMArena Instruction Following1318—

Long Context Not comparable

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning: 39.9 (#165), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: —

BenchmarkNemotron 3.5 LightningQwen2.5 7B Instruct
LMArena Longer Query1314—

Writing & Preference Too close to call

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning: 48.5 (#201), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 48.8 (#195)

BenchmarkNemotron 3.5 LightningQwen2.5 7B Instruct
LMArena Text1327—
LMArena Creative Writing1254—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1280—
WildBench—73.1%
LMArena Multi-Turn1328—

Frequently asked questions

Is Nemotron 3.5 Lightning better than Qwen2.5 7B Instruct?

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.0 to 29.0 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Nemotron 3.5 Lightning or Qwen2.5 7B Instruct?

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning is cheaper. It lists at $0.05 per million input tokens and $0.20 per million output tokens; Qwen2.5 7B Instruct lists at $0.17 and $0.70.

Is Nemotron 3.5 Lightning or Qwen2.5 7B Instruct better for coding?

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.4 versus 36.5 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Nemotron 3.5 Lightning does, with 262K tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks do Nemotron 3.5 Lightning and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Nemotron 3.5 Lightning has 18 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct has 15.

Related comparisons

Go deeper