Model comparison
Qwen1.5-14B vs Qwen2.5-Max
Qwen2.5-Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.7 to 32.7 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 16 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen1.5-14B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen2.5-Max in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen2.5-Max leads 55.4 to 33.6.
- Qwen1.5-14B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Qwen1.5-14B | Qwen2.5-Max | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 32.7 | 40.7 |
| Released | 2024-02-04 | 2025-01-25 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 17 | 27 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen2.5-Max leads
Qwen1.5-14B: 33.1 (#263), Qwen2.5-Max: 41.8 (#117)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-14B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1138 | 1359 |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 64.4% |
Reasoning Qwen2.5-Max leads
Qwen1.5-14B: 21.4 (#223), Qwen2.5-Max: 25.6 (#147)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-14B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1113 | 1360 |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 51.4% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 67.9% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 132.53 |
| LiveBench | — | 62.3% |
Math Qwen2.5-Max leads
Qwen1.5-14B: 32.4 (#215), Qwen2.5-Max: 36.9 (#162)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-14B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1125 | 1369 |
| LiveBench Math | — | 58.4% |
Knowledge Qwen2.5-Max leads
Qwen1.5-14B: 29.8 (#232), Qwen2.5-Max: 35.3 (#186)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-14B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1094 | 1337 |
| Confabulations | — | 21.8% |
| MMLU | 68.6% | — |
Multilingual Qwen2.5-Max leads
Qwen1.5-14B: 30.7 (#262), Qwen2.5-Max: 48.1 (#146)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-14B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1095 | 1352 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1147 | 1382 |
| LMArena French | 1116 | 1396 |
| LMArena German | 1043 | 1350 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1019 | 1300 |
| LMArena Russian | 1046 | 1353 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1085 | 1377 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1304 |
Instruction Following Qwen2.5-Max leads
Qwen1.5-14B: 56.8 (#271), Qwen2.5-Max: 71.3 (#152)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-14B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1102 | 1335 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 75.3% |
Long Context Qwen2.5-Max leads
Qwen1.5-14B: 33.7 (#257), Qwen2.5-Max: 41.4 (#142)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-14B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1113 | 1358 |
Writing & Preference Qwen2.5-Max leads
Qwen1.5-14B: 33.6 (#276), Qwen2.5-Max: 55.4 (#146)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-14B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1128 | 1367 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1091 | 1339 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1110 | 1364 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 72.9% |
| LiveBench Language | — | 56.3% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Qwen1.5-14B better than Qwen2.5-Max?
Qwen2.5-Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.7 to 32.7 on the Noometry Index.
Is Qwen1.5-14B or Qwen2.5-Max better for coding?
Qwen2.5-Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.8 versus 33.1 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Qwen1.5-14B and Qwen2.5-Max share?
16 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen1.5-14B has 17 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Max has 27.