Model comparison
Qwen1.5-32B vs Qwen2.5 Plus 1127
Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 30.5 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 14 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen1.5-32B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads 35.5 to 13.5.
- Qwen1.5-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Qwen1.5-32B | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 30.5 | 38.8 |
| Released | 2024-02-04 | — |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 21 | 14 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads
Qwen1.5-32B: 31.7 (#282), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 38.5 (#175)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-32B | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1155 | 1314 |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 32.3% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 42% | — |
Reasoning Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads
Qwen1.5-32B: 21.8 (#212), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 25.9 (#141)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-32B | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1130 | 1299 |
Math Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads
Qwen1.5-32B: 33.0 (#207), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 36.1 (#174)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-32B | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1155 | 1298 |
Knowledge Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads
Qwen1.5-32B: 13.5 (#296), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 35.5 (#183)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-32B | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1126 | 1289 |
| GPQA Diamond | 30.7% | — |
| MMLU | 74.4% | — |
Multilingual Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads
Qwen1.5-32B: 31.4 (#259), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 41.9 (#201)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-32B | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1106 | 1265 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1177 | 1314 |
| LMArena German | 1058 | 1231 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1027 | 1207 |
| LMArena Russian | 1073 | 1271 |
| LMArena French | 1101 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1008 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1089 | — |
Instruction Following Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads
Qwen1.5-32B: 57.7 (#265), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 67.2 (#199)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-32B | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1116 | 1275 |
Long Context Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads
Qwen1.5-32B: 34.7 (#246), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 39.2 (#184)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-32B | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1146 | 1292 |
Writing & Preference Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads
Qwen1.5-32B: 34.2 (#271), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 49.4 (#192)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-32B | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1137 | 1299 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1083 | 1262 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1140 | 1299 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Qwen1.5-32B better than Qwen2.5 Plus 1127?
Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 30.5 on the Noometry Index.
Is Qwen1.5-32B or Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 better for coding?
Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.5 versus 31.7 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Qwen1.5-32B and Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 share?
14 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen1.5-32B has 21 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 has 14.