Model comparison
Qwen-14B vs Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
Qwen-14B is the stronger model overall, scoring 31.4 to 30.1 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. Qwen-14B scores higher in 2 categories and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct in 1 category; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen-14B leads 31.2 to 16.2.
Side by side
| Qwen-14B | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 31.4 | 30.1 |
| Released | 2023-09-24 | 2024-09 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | 131K |
| Max output | — | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.70 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $2.80 |
| Results tracked | 18 | 7 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen2.5 32B Instruct leads
Qwen-14B: 31.2 (#288), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 38.7 (#169)
| Benchmark | Qwen-14B | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 45% |
| LMArena Coding | 1071 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 52.3% |
Reasoning Too close to call
Qwen-14B: 19.6 (#257), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 19.2 (#266)
| Benchmark | Qwen-14B | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 113.03 | 128.52 |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1027 | — |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 55% | — |
| LAMBADA | 71.1% | — |
| PIQA | 79.9% | — |
Math Qwen-14B leads
Qwen-14B: 31.2 (#227), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 16.2 (#296)
| Benchmark | Qwen-14B | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 7.4% |
| LMArena Math | 1068 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 56.1% |
| GSM8K | 61.3% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Qwen-14B: —, Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 24.9 (#266)
| Benchmark | Qwen-14B | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 46.1% |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 84.4% | — |
| BoolQ | 86.2% | — |
| MMLU | 66.3% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Qwen-14B: 27.5 (#275), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Qwen-14B | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1041 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1077 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Qwen-14B: 52.4 (#289), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Qwen-14B | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1031 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Qwen-14B: 31.3 (#280), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Qwen-14B | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1028 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Qwen-14B: 27.6 (#299), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Qwen-14B | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1051 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1028 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1022 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Qwen-14B better than Qwen2.5 32B Instruct?
Qwen-14B is the stronger model overall, scoring 31.4 to 30.1 on the Noometry Index.
Is Qwen-14B or Qwen2.5 32B Instruct better for coding?
Qwen2.5 32B Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.7 versus 31.2 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Qwen-14B and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct share?
1 benchmark has published results for both models. Qwen-14B has 18 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct has 7.