Model comparison

Palm 2 vs Qwen2.5-Coder-32B

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.4 to 30.0 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 10 shared benchmarks.

Palm 2 Google

30.0

Rank #298 Confirmed

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B Alibaba (Qwen)

33.4

Rank #245 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 10 benchmarks with published results for both. Palm 2 scores higher in 1 category and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B in 6 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in multilingual, where Qwen2.5-Coder-32B leads 37.8 to 20.9.
  • Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Palm 2 and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B specifications
Palm 2Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
ProviderGoogleAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index30.033.4
Released—2024-09-18
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window—33K
Max output—29K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.66
Output $ / M tokens—$1
Results tracked1031

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

Category by category

Coding Palm 2 leads

Palm 2: 29.0 (#311), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 22.6 (#333)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkPalm 2Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Coding9941276
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)—9%
Aider Polyglot—16.4%
BigCodeBench Instruct—49%
LiveBench Coding—56.9%
BigCodeBench Complete—58%
HumanEval+—87.2%
MBPP+—77%

Reasoning Qwen2.5-Coder-32B leads

Palm 2: 19.1 (#271), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 21.2 (#225)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkPalm 2Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Hard Prompts10051251
LiveBench Reasoning—42.1%
LiveBench Data Analysis—49.9%
Epoch Capabilities Index—119.49
HellaSwag—83%
LiveBench—46.2%
WinoGrande—80.8%

Math Qwen2.5-Coder-32B leads

Palm 2: 30.8 (#231), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.3 (#204)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkPalm 2Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Math10491251
LiveBench Math—46.6%
GSM8K—93%

Knowledge Not comparable

Palm 2: —, Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.4 (#203)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkPalm 2Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Expert—1221
ARC (AI2) Challenge—70.5%
MMLU—79.1%

Multilingual Qwen2.5-Coder-32B leads

Palm 2: 20.9 (#295), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 37.8 (#235)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkPalm 2Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Non-English9161205
LMArena Chinese8871222
LMArena Russian—1228

Instruction Following Qwen2.5-Coder-32B leads

Palm 2: 51.0 (#296), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 61.4 (#245)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkPalm 2Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Instruction Following10101223
LiveBench Instruction Following—58.7%

Long Context Qwen2.5-Coder-32B leads

Palm 2: 30.8 (#285), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 38.0 (#208)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkPalm 2Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Longer Query10101251

Writing & Preference Qwen2.5-Coder-32B leads

Palm 2: 25.6 (#304), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 41.6 (#240)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkPalm 2Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Text10271230
LMArena Creative Writing9911174
LMArena Multi-Turn9941222
LiveBench Language—23.3%

Frequently asked questions

Is Palm 2 better than Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.4 to 30.0 on the Noometry Index.

Is Palm 2 or Qwen2.5-Coder-32B better for coding?

Palm 2 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 29.0 versus 22.6 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Palm 2 and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B share?

10 benchmarks have published results for both models. Palm 2 has 10 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has 31.

Related comparisons

Go deeper