Model comparison
Qwen1.5-14B vs Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
Qwen1.5-14B is the stronger model overall, scoring 32.1 to 28.6 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. Qwen1.5-14B scores higher in 3 categories and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct in 3 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen1.5-14B leads 29.9 to 11.8.
Side by side
| Qwen1.5-14B | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 32.1 | 28.6 |
| Released | 2024-02-04 | 2024-09 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | 131K |
| Max output | — | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.17 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $0.70 |
| Results tracked | 17 | 15 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen2.5 7B Instruct leads
Qwen1.5-14B: 32.5 (#259), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 35.9 (#204)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-14B | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 37.6% |
| LMArena Coding | 1138 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 46.1% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Qwen1.5-14B: —, Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 23.5 (#117)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-14B | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| BALROG | — | 7.8% |
Reasoning Qwen1.5-14B leads
Qwen1.5-14B: 20.5 (#217), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 14.3 (#317)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-14B | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1113 | — |
| DTBench | — | 47.7% |
| LMCA | — | 6.4% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 118.44 |
Math Qwen1.5-14B leads
Qwen1.5-14B: 29.9 (#214), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 11.8 (#300)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-14B | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 2.5% |
| Omni-MATH | — | 29.4% |
| LMArena Math | 1125 | — |
Knowledge Qwen1.5-14B leads
Qwen1.5-14B: 29.3 (#230), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 17.0 (#281)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-14B | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| MMLU | 68.6% | 72.9% |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 35.5% |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 53.9% |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 34.1% |
| LMArena Expert | 1094 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Qwen1.5-14B: 30.8 (#257), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-14B | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1095 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1147 | — |
| LMArena French | 1115 | — |
| LMArena German | 1043 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1019 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1046 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1085 | — |
Instruction Following Qwen2.5 7B Instruct leads
Qwen1.5-14B: 57.1 (#266), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 63.4 (#226)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-14B | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| IFEval | — | 74.1% |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1102 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Qwen1.5-14B: 33.7 (#252), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-14B | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1113 | — |
Writing & Preference Qwen2.5 7B Instruct leads
Qwen1.5-14B: 33.7 (#270), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 48.8 (#194)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-14B | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1128 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1091 | — |
| WildBench | — | 73.1% |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1110 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Qwen1.5-14B better than Qwen2.5 7B Instruct?
Qwen1.5-14B is the stronger model overall, scoring 32.1 to 28.6 on the Noometry Index.
Is Qwen1.5-14B or Qwen2.5 7B Instruct better for coding?
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 35.9 versus 32.5 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Qwen1.5-14B and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct share?
1 benchmark has published results for both models. Qwen1.5-14B has 17 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct has 15.