Model comparison
Nova 2.0 Pro Preview vs Qwen1.5-72B
Nova 2.0 Pro Preview is the stronger model overall, scoring 32.8 to 30.3 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in coding, where Nova 2.0 Pro Preview leads 40.2 to 31.4.
- Qwen1.5-72B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Nova 2.0 Pro Preview | Qwen1.5-72B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Amazon | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 32.8 | 30.3 |
| Released | 2025-12-02 | 2024-02-04 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 3 | 22 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Nova 2.0 Pro Preview leads
Nova 2.0 Pro Preview: 40.2 (#130), Qwen1.5-72B: 31.4 (#272)
| Benchmark | Nova 2.0 Pro Preview | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 42.7% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 33.2% |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1166 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 40.3% |
| HumanEval+ | — | 59.1% |
| MBPP+ | — | 61.6% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Nova 2.0 Pro Preview: 21.9 (#127), Qwen1.5-72B: —
| Benchmark | Nova 2.0 Pro Preview | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| GDP.pdf | 2% | — |
Reasoning Too close to call
Nova 2.0 Pro Preview: 21.7 (#189), Qwen1.5-72B: 21.2 (#201)
| Benchmark | Nova 2.0 Pro Preview | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 0% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1148 |
Math Not comparable
Nova 2.0 Pro Preview: —, Qwen1.5-72B: 30.7 (#205)
| Benchmark | Nova 2.0 Pro Preview | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | — | 1164 |
Knowledge Not comparable
Nova 2.0 Pro Preview: —, Qwen1.5-72B: 11.5 (#295)
| Benchmark | Nova 2.0 Pro Preview | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 28.8% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1136 |
Multilingual Not comparable
Nova 2.0 Pro Preview: —, Qwen1.5-72B: 33.4 (#248)
| Benchmark | Nova 2.0 Pro Preview | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1135 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1186 |
| LMArena French | — | 1158 |
| LMArena German | — | 1084 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1061 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1049 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1104 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1110 |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Nova 2.0 Pro Preview: —, Qwen1.5-72B: 59.6 (#251)
| Benchmark | Nova 2.0 Pro Preview | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1142 |
Long Context Not comparable
Nova 2.0 Pro Preview: —, Qwen1.5-72B: 35.0 (#238)
| Benchmark | Nova 2.0 Pro Preview | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1157 |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Nova 2.0 Pro Preview: —, Qwen1.5-72B: 37.4 (#253)
| Benchmark | Nova 2.0 Pro Preview | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1166 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1137 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1160 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Nova 2.0 Pro Preview better than Qwen1.5-72B?
Nova 2.0 Pro Preview is the stronger model overall, scoring 32.8 to 30.3 on the Noometry Index.
Is Nova 2.0 Pro Preview or Qwen1.5-72B better for coding?
Nova 2.0 Pro Preview scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.2 versus 31.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Nova 2.0 Pro Preview and Qwen1.5-72B share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Nova 2.0 Pro Preview has 3 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-72B has 22.