Model comparison
Qwen1.5-32B vs Wizardlm 13b
Qwen1.5-32B and Wizardlm 13b score almost the same on the Noometry Index (30.5 vs 31.4), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Last verified . 10 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)
MicrosoftSummary
- They share 10 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen1.5-32B scores higher in 7 categories and Wizardlm 13b in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in multilingual, where Qwen1.5-32B leads 31.4 to 27.1.
Side by side
| Qwen1.5-32B | Wizardlm 13b | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | Microsoft |
| Noometry Index | 30.5 | 31.4 |
| Released | 2024-02-04 | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 21 | 10 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen1.5-32B leads
Qwen1.5-32B: 31.7 (#282), Wizardlm 13b: 30.1 (#298)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-32B | Wizardlm 13b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1155 | 1035 |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 32.3% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 42% | — |
Reasoning Qwen1.5-32B leads
Qwen1.5-32B: 21.8 (#212), Wizardlm 13b: 19.4 (#259)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-32B | Wizardlm 13b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1130 | 1018 |
Math Qwen1.5-32B leads
Qwen1.5-32B: 33.0 (#207), Wizardlm 13b: 30.2 (#238)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-32B | Wizardlm 13b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1155 | 1017 |
Knowledge Not comparable
Qwen1.5-32B: 13.5 (#296), Wizardlm 13b: —
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-32B | Wizardlm 13b |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 30.7% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1126 | — |
| MMLU | 74.4% | — |
Multilingual Qwen1.5-32B leads
Qwen1.5-32B: 31.4 (#259), Wizardlm 13b: 27.1 (#277)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-32B | Wizardlm 13b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1106 | 1034 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1177 | 1023 |
| LMArena French | 1101 | — |
| LMArena German | 1058 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1027 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1008 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1073 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1089 | — |
Instruction Following Qwen1.5-32B leads
Qwen1.5-32B: 57.7 (#265), Wizardlm 13b: 53.5 (#285)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-32B | Wizardlm 13b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1116 | 1048 |
Long Context Qwen1.5-32B leads
Qwen1.5-32B: 34.7 (#246), Wizardlm 13b: 32.0 (#273)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-32B | Wizardlm 13b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1146 | 1054 |
Writing & Preference Qwen1.5-32B leads
Qwen1.5-32B: 34.2 (#271), Wizardlm 13b: 30.5 (#287)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-32B | Wizardlm 13b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1137 | 1077 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1083 | 1091 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1140 | 1047 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Qwen1.5-32B better than Wizardlm 13b?
Qwen1.5-32B and Wizardlm 13b score almost the same on the Noometry Index (30.5 vs 31.4), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Is Qwen1.5-32B or Wizardlm 13b better for coding?
Qwen1.5-32B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 31.7 versus 30.1 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Qwen1.5-32B and Wizardlm 13b share?
10 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen1.5-32B has 21 scored results on Noometry and Wizardlm 13b has 10.