Model comparison
Qwen1.5-110B vs Sonar
Sonar is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.8 to 33.6 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)
PerplexitySummary
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Sonar leads 52.6 to 38.1.
- Qwen1.5-110B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Qwen1.5-110B | Sonar | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | Perplexity |
| Noometry Index | 33.6 | 37.8 |
| Released | 2024-04-25 | 2024-01-01 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | — | 128K |
| Max output | — | 4K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $1 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $1 |
| Results tracked | 20 | 7 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Sonar leads
Qwen1.5-110B: 32.4 (#260), Sonar: 35.1 (#217)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-110B | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 35% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 35.1% |
| LMArena Coding | 1184 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 44.4% | — |
Reasoning Qwen1.5-110B leads
Qwen1.5-110B: 21.7 (#192), Sonar: 20.3 (#221)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-110B | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 46.3% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1168 | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 37.9% |
| ForecastBench | 57.7 | — |
| LiveBench | — | 46.9% |
Math Too close to call
Qwen1.5-110B: 31.1 (#199), Sonar: 31.3 (#197)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-110B | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Math | — | 41.6% |
| LMArena Math | 1185 | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Qwen1.5-110B: 30.7 (#217), Sonar: —
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-110B | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1144 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Qwen1.5-110B: 33.8 (#245), Sonar: —
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-110B | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1142 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1206 | — |
| LMArena French | 1150 | — |
| LMArena German | 1123 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1074 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1044 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1118 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1141 | — |
Instruction Following Sonar leads
Qwen1.5-110B: 60.6 (#247), Sonar: 71.5 (#146)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-110B | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 76.2% |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1158 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Qwen1.5-110B: 35.0 (#237), Sonar: —
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-110B | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1157 | — |
Writing & Preference Sonar leads
Qwen1.5-110B: 38.1 (#250), Sonar: 52.6 (#166)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-110B | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1175 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1148 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1160 | — |
| LiveBench Language | — | 44.1% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Qwen1.5-110B better than Sonar?
Sonar is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.8 to 33.6 on the Noometry Index.
Is Qwen1.5-110B or Sonar better for coding?
Sonar scores higher on coding benchmarks: 35.1 versus 32.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Qwen1.5-110B and Sonar share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen1.5-110B has 20 scored results on Noometry and Sonar has 7.