Model comparison
Qwen1.5-32B vs Qwen2.5 14B Instruct
Qwen1.5-32B has enough public results to be ranked (#293); Qwen2.5 14B Instruct does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Last verified . 3 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen1.5-32B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen2.5 14B Instruct in 1 category; one gap is clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in coding, where Qwen2.5 14B Instruct leads 37.7 to 31.7.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is BigCodeBench Complete: 42% for Qwen1.5-32B and 52.2% for Qwen2.5 14B Instruct.
Side by side
| Qwen1.5-32B | Qwen2.5 14B Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 30.5 | 38.7 |
| Released | 2024-02-04 | 2024-09 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | 131K |
| Max output | — | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.35 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $1.40 |
| Results tracked | 21 | 3 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen2.5 14B Instruct leads
Qwen1.5-32B: 31.7 (#282), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: 37.7 (#191)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-32B | Qwen2.5 14B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 32.3% | 39.8% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 42% | 52.2% |
| LMArena Coding | 1155 | — |
Reasoning Not comparable
Qwen1.5-32B: 21.8 (#212), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-32B | Qwen2.5 14B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1130 | — |
Math Not comparable
Qwen1.5-32B: 33.0 (#207), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-32B | Qwen2.5 14B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1155 | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Qwen1.5-32B: 13.5 (#296), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-32B | Qwen2.5 14B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| MMLU | 74.4% | 79.9% |
| GPQA Diamond | 30.7% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1126 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Qwen1.5-32B: 31.4 (#259), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-32B | Qwen2.5 14B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1106 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1177 | — |
| LMArena French | 1101 | — |
| LMArena German | 1058 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1027 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1008 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1073 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1089 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Qwen1.5-32B: 57.7 (#265), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-32B | Qwen2.5 14B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1116 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Qwen1.5-32B: 34.7 (#246), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-32B | Qwen2.5 14B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1146 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Qwen1.5-32B: 34.2 (#271), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-32B | Qwen2.5 14B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1137 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1083 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1140 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Qwen1.5-32B better than Qwen2.5 14B Instruct?
Qwen1.5-32B has enough public results to be ranked (#293); Qwen2.5 14B Instruct does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Is Qwen1.5-32B or Qwen2.5 14B Instruct better for coding?
Qwen2.5 14B Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.7 versus 31.7 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Qwen1.5-32B and Qwen2.5 14B Instruct share?
3 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen1.5-32B has 21 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 14B Instruct has 3.