Model comparison
Qwen1.5-110B vs Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
Qwen1.5-110B is the stronger model overall, scoring 34.2 to 30.1 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen1.5-110B scores higher in 3 categories and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct in 1 category; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen1.5-110B leads 33.7 to 16.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is BigCodeBench Instruct: 35% for Qwen1.5-110B and 45% for Qwen2.5 32B Instruct.
Side by side
| Qwen1.5-110B | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 34.2 | 30.1 |
| Released | 2024-04-25 | 2024-09 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | 131K |
| Max output | — | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.70 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $2.80 |
| Results tracked | 20 | 7 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen2.5 32B Instruct leads
Qwen1.5-110B: 33.0 (#264), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 38.7 (#169)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-110B | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 35% | 45% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 44.4% | 52.3% |
| LMArena Coding | 1184 | — |
Reasoning Qwen1.5-110B leads
Qwen1.5-110B: 22.7 (#189), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 19.2 (#266)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-110B | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1168 | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 128.52 |
| ForecastBench | 57.7 | — |
Math Qwen1.5-110B leads
Qwen1.5-110B: 33.7 (#201), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 16.2 (#296)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-110B | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 7.4% |
| LMArena Math | 1185 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 56.1% |
Knowledge Qwen1.5-110B leads
Qwen1.5-110B: 31.2 (#219), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 24.9 (#266)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-110B | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 46.1% |
| LMArena Expert | 1144 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Qwen1.5-110B: 33.6 (#250), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-110B | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1142 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1206 | — |
| LMArena French | 1151 | — |
| LMArena German | 1123 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1074 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1044 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1118 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1142 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Qwen1.5-110B: 60.3 (#252), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-110B | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1158 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Qwen1.5-110B: 35.1 (#242), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-110B | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1157 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Qwen1.5-110B: 38.0 (#255), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-110B | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1175 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1148 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1160 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Qwen1.5-110B better than Qwen2.5 32B Instruct?
Qwen1.5-110B is the stronger model overall, scoring 34.2 to 30.1 on the Noometry Index.
Is Qwen1.5-110B or Qwen2.5 32B Instruct better for coding?
Qwen2.5 32B Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.7 versus 33.0 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Qwen1.5-110B and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct share?
2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen1.5-110B has 20 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct has 7.