Model comparison

Qwen1.5-72B vs Qwen3 8B

Qwen3 8B is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.3 to 30.3 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.

Qwen1.5-72B Alibaba (Qwen)

30.3

Rank #282 Confirmed

Qwen3 8B Alibaba (Qwen)

33.3

Rank #237 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. Qwen1.5-72B scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3 8B in 4 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3 8B leads 36.1 to 11.5.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 28.8% for Qwen1.5-72B and 56.8% for Qwen3 8B.

Side by side

Qwen1.5-72B and Qwen3 8B specifications
Qwen1.5-72BQwen3 8B
ProviderAlibaba (Qwen)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index30.333.3
Released2024-02-042025-04
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window—131K
Max output—8K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.18
Output $ / M tokens—$0.70
Results tracked2211

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Qwen3 8B leads

Qwen1.5-72B: 31.4 (#272), Qwen3 8B: 33.4 (#245)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen1.5-72BQwen3 8B
SciCode—22.6%
BigCodeBench Instruct33.2%—
LMArena Coding1166—
BigCodeBench Complete40.3%—
HumanEval+59.1%—
MBPP+61.6%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Qwen1.5-72B: —, Qwen3 8B: 29.9 (#71)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen1.5-72BQwen3 8B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—42.6%

Reasoning Qwen1.5-72B leads

Qwen1.5-72B: 21.2 (#201), Qwen3 8B: 16.1 (#299)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen1.5-72BQwen3 8B
CritPt—0%
Chess Puzzles—5%
LMArena Hard Prompts1148—
DTBench—59.7%
LMCA—8.8%
Epoch Capabilities Index—136.17

Math Qwen3 8B leads

Qwen1.5-72B: 30.7 (#205), Qwen3 8B: 33.3 (#176)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen1.5-72BQwen3 8B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—56.1%
LMArena Math1164—

Knowledge Qwen3 8B leads

Qwen1.5-72B: 11.5 (#295), Qwen3 8B: 36.1 (#164)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen1.5-72BQwen3 8B
GPQA Diamond28.8%56.8%
Vectara Hallucination Rate—4.8%
LMArena Expert1136—

Multilingual Not comparable

Qwen1.5-72B: 33.4 (#248), Qwen3 8B: —

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen1.5-72BQwen3 8B
LMArena Non-English1135—
LMArena Chinese1186—
LMArena French1158—
LMArena German1084—
LMArena Japanese1061—
LMArena Korean1049—
LMArena Russian1104—
LMArena Spanish1110—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Qwen1.5-72B: 59.6 (#251), Qwen3 8B: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen1.5-72BQwen3 8B
LMArena Instruction Following1142—

Long Context Qwen3 8B leads

Qwen1.5-72B: 35.0 (#238), Qwen3 8B: 37.8 (#205)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen1.5-72BQwen3 8B
Fiction.LiveBench—62.1%
LMArena Longer Query1157—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Qwen1.5-72B: 37.4 (#253), Qwen3 8B: —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen1.5-72BQwen3 8B
LMArena Text1166—
LMArena Creative Writing1137—
LMArena Multi-Turn1160—

Frequently asked questions

Is Qwen1.5-72B better than Qwen3 8B?

Qwen3 8B is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.3 to 30.3 on the Noometry Index.

Is Qwen1.5-72B or Qwen3 8B better for coding?

Qwen3 8B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 33.4 versus 31.4 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Qwen1.5-72B and Qwen3 8B share?

1 benchmark has published results for both models. Qwen1.5-72B has 22 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 8B has 11.

Related comparisons

Go deeper