Model comparison
Qwen1.5-72B vs Wizardlm 13b
Qwen1.5-72B and Wizardlm 13b score almost the same on the Noometry Index (30.8 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. Qwen1.5-72B scores higher in 7 categories and Wizardlm 13b in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen1.5-72B leads 37.3 to 30.5.
Side by side
| Qwen1.5-72B | Wizardlm 13b | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | Microsoft |
| Noometry Index | 30.8 | 31.4 |
| Released | 2024-02-04 | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 22 | 10 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen1.5-72B leads
Qwen1.5-72B: 31.9 (#277), Wizardlm 13b: 30.1 (#298)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-72B | Wizardlm 13b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1165 | 1035 |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 33.2% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 40.3% | — |
| HumanEval+ | 59.1% | — |
| MBPP+ | 61.6% | — |
Reasoning Qwen1.5-72B leads
Qwen1.5-72B: 22.2 (#203), Wizardlm 13b: 19.4 (#259)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-72B | Wizardlm 13b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1148 | 1018 |
Math Qwen1.5-72B leads
Qwen1.5-72B: 33.2 (#205), Wizardlm 13b: 30.2 (#238)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-72B | Wizardlm 13b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1164 | 1017 |
Knowledge Not comparable
Qwen1.5-72B: 11.5 (#300), Wizardlm 13b: —
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-72B | Wizardlm 13b |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 28.8% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1136 | — |
Multilingual Qwen1.5-72B leads
Qwen1.5-72B: 33.2 (#253), Wizardlm 13b: 27.1 (#277)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-72B | Wizardlm 13b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1135 | 1034 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1186 | 1023 |
| LMArena French | 1159 | — |
| LMArena German | 1084 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1061 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1050 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1104 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1110 | — |
Instruction Following Qwen1.5-72B leads
Qwen1.5-72B: 59.3 (#256), Wizardlm 13b: 53.5 (#285)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-72B | Wizardlm 13b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1141 | 1048 |
Long Context Qwen1.5-72B leads
Qwen1.5-72B: 35.1 (#243), Wizardlm 13b: 32.0 (#273)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-72B | Wizardlm 13b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1157 | 1054 |
Writing & Preference Qwen1.5-72B leads
Qwen1.5-72B: 37.3 (#258), Wizardlm 13b: 30.5 (#287)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-72B | Wizardlm 13b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1166 | 1077 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1137 | 1091 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1160 | 1047 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Qwen1.5-72B better than Wizardlm 13b?
Qwen1.5-72B and Wizardlm 13b score almost the same on the Noometry Index (30.8 vs 31.4), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Is Qwen1.5-72B or Wizardlm 13b better for coding?
Qwen1.5-72B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 31.9 versus 30.1 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Qwen1.5-72B and Wizardlm 13b share?
10 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen1.5-72B has 22 scored results on Noometry and Wizardlm 13b has 10.