Model comparison
Qwen1.5-72B vs Qwen3-1.7B
Qwen1.5-72B is the stronger model overall, scoring 30.8 to 26.6 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. Qwen1.5-72B scores higher in 2 categories and Qwen3-1.7B in 1 category; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen1.5-72B leads 33.2 to 16.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 28.8% for Qwen1.5-72B and 38% for Qwen3-1.7B.
Side by side
| Qwen1.5-72B | Qwen3-1.7B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 30.8 | 26.6 |
| Released | 2024-02-04 | 2025-04-29 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 22 | 4 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
Qwen1.5-72B: 31.9 (#277), Qwen3-1.7B: —
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-72B | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 33.2% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1165 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 40.3% | — |
| HumanEval+ | 59.1% | — |
| MBPP+ | 61.6% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Qwen1.5-72B: —, Qwen3-1.7B: 24.7 (#115)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-72B | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 28.4% |
Reasoning Qwen1.5-72B leads
Qwen1.5-72B: 22.2 (#203), Qwen3-1.7B: 19.2 (#267)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-72B | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1148 | — |
Math Qwen1.5-72B leads
Qwen1.5-72B: 33.2 (#205), Qwen3-1.7B: 16.3 (#294)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-72B | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 8.1% |
| LMArena Math | 1164 | — |
Knowledge Qwen3-1.7B leads
Qwen1.5-72B: 11.5 (#300), Qwen3-1.7B: 19.6 (#278)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-72B | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 28.8% | 38% |
| LMArena Expert | 1136 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Qwen1.5-72B: 33.2 (#253), Qwen3-1.7B: —
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-72B | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1135 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1186 | — |
| LMArena French | 1159 | — |
| LMArena German | 1084 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1061 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1050 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1104 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1110 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Qwen1.5-72B: 59.3 (#256), Qwen3-1.7B: —
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-72B | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1141 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Qwen1.5-72B: 35.1 (#243), Qwen3-1.7B: —
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-72B | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1157 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Qwen1.5-72B: 37.3 (#258), Qwen3-1.7B: —
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-72B | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1166 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1137 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1160 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Qwen1.5-72B better than Qwen3-1.7B?
Qwen1.5-72B is the stronger model overall, scoring 30.8 to 26.6 on the Noometry Index.
How many benchmarks do Qwen1.5-72B and Qwen3-1.7B share?
1 benchmark has published results for both models. Qwen1.5-72B has 22 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3-1.7B has 4.