Model comparison
OLMo 2 Furious 13B vs Qwen-14B
Qwen-14B is the stronger model overall, scoring 31.4 to 29.7 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where OLMo 2 Furious 13B leads 42.9 to 27.6.
Side by side
| OLMo 2 Furious 13B | Qwen-14B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 29.7 | 31.4 |
| Released | 2024-12-31 | 2023-09-24 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 12 | 18 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen-14B leads
OLMo 2 Furious 13B: 28.6 (#313), Qwen-14B: 31.2 (#288)
| Benchmark | OLMo 2 Furious 13B | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Coding | 10.4% | — |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1071 |
Reasoning Qwen-14B leads
OLMo 2 Furious 13B: 15.5 (#314), Qwen-14B: 19.6 (#257)
| Benchmark | OLMo 2 Furious 13B | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Reasoning | 16.3% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1027 |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 20.6% | — |
| BIG-Bench Hard | — | 55% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 113.03 |
| LAMBADA | — | 71.1% |
| LiveBench | 22.1% | — |
| PIQA | — | 79.9% |
Math Qwen-14B leads
OLMo 2 Furious 13B: 23.1 (#273), Qwen-14B: 31.2 (#227)
| Benchmark | OLMo 2 Furious 13B | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| Omni-MATH | 15.6% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 13.6% | — |
| LMArena Math | — | 1068 |
| GSM8K | — | 61.3% |
Knowledge Not comparable
OLMo 2 Furious 13B: 18.3 (#283), Qwen-14B: —
| Benchmark | OLMo 2 Furious 13B | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| MMLU-Pro | 31% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 31.6% | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 84.4% |
| BoolQ | — | 86.2% |
| MMLU | — | 66.3% |
Multilingual Not comparable
OLMo 2 Furious 13B: —, Qwen-14B: 27.5 (#275)
| Benchmark | OLMo 2 Furious 13B | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1041 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1077 |
Instruction Following OLMo 2 Furious 13B leads
OLMo 2 Furious 13B: 60.9 (#248), Qwen-14B: 52.4 (#289)
| Benchmark | OLMo 2 Furious 13B | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 60.6% | — |
| IFEval | 73% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1031 |
Long Context Not comparable
OLMo 2 Furious 13B: —, Qwen-14B: 31.3 (#280)
| Benchmark | OLMo 2 Furious 13B | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1028 |
Writing & Preference OLMo 2 Furious 13B leads
OLMo 2 Furious 13B: 42.9 (#230), Qwen-14B: 27.6 (#299)
| Benchmark | OLMo 2 Furious 13B | Qwen-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1051 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1028 |
| WildBench | 68.9% | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1022 |
| LiveBench Language | 11.2% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is OLMo 2 Furious 13B better than Qwen-14B?
Qwen-14B is the stronger model overall, scoring 31.4 to 29.7 on the Noometry Index.
Is OLMo 2 Furious 13B or Qwen-14B better for coding?
Qwen-14B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 31.2 versus 28.6 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do OLMo 2 Furious 13B and Qwen-14B share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. OLMo 2 Furious 13B has 12 scored results on Noometry and Qwen-14B has 18.