Model comparison
Qwen1.5-14B vs Sonar
Sonar is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.8 to 32.1 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 33.7.
- Qwen1.5-14B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Qwen1.5-14B | Sonar | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | Perplexity |
| Noometry Index | 32.1 | 37.8 |
| Released | 2024-02-04 | 2024-01-01 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | — | 128K |
| Max output | — | 4K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $1 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $1 |
| Results tracked | 17 | 7 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Sonar leads
Qwen1.5-14B: 32.5 (#259), Sonar: 35.1 (#217)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-14B | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Coding | — | 35.1% |
| LMArena Coding | 1138 | — |
Reasoning Too close to call
Qwen1.5-14B: 20.5 (#217), Sonar: 20.3 (#221)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-14B | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 46.3% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1113 | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 37.9% |
| LiveBench | — | 46.9% |
Math Sonar leads
Qwen1.5-14B: 29.9 (#214), Sonar: 31.3 (#197)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-14B | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Math | — | 41.6% |
| LMArena Math | 1125 | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Qwen1.5-14B: 29.3 (#230), Sonar: —
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-14B | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1094 | — |
| MMLU | 68.6% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Qwen1.5-14B: 30.8 (#257), Sonar: —
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-14B | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1095 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1147 | — |
| LMArena French | 1115 | — |
| LMArena German | 1043 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1019 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1046 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1085 | — |
Instruction Following Sonar leads
Qwen1.5-14B: 57.1 (#266), Sonar: 71.5 (#146)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-14B | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 76.2% |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1102 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Qwen1.5-14B: 33.7 (#252), Sonar: —
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-14B | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1113 | — |
Writing & Preference Sonar leads
Qwen1.5-14B: 33.7 (#270), Sonar: 52.6 (#166)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-14B | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1128 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1091 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1110 | — |
| LiveBench Language | — | 44.1% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Qwen1.5-14B better than Sonar?
Sonar is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.8 to 32.1 on the Noometry Index.
Is Qwen1.5-14B or Sonar better for coding?
Sonar scores higher on coding benchmarks: 35.1 versus 32.5 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Qwen1.5-14B and Sonar share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen1.5-14B has 17 scored results on Noometry and Sonar has 7.