Model comparison
Qwen1.5-7B vs Qwen2-72B
Qwen1.5-7B is the stronger model overall, scoring 30.8 to 29.5 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen1.5-7B scores higher in 3 categories and Qwen2-72B in 5 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen2-72B leads 41.0 to 29.8.
Side by side
| Qwen1.5-7B | Qwen2-72B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 30.8 | 29.5 |
| Released | 2024-02-04 | 2024-06-07 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 13 | 26 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen1.5-7B leads
Qwen1.5-7B: 31.6 (#271), Qwen2-72B: 28.7 (#303)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-7B | Qwen2-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1107 | 1196 |
| WeirdML | — | 11.3% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 38.5% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 54% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Qwen1.5-7B: —, Qwen2-72B: 16.9 (#138)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-7B | Qwen2-72B |
|---|---|---|
| TheAgentCompany | — | 1.1% |
| METR Time Horizons | — | 29.9% |
Reasoning Qwen2-72B leads
Qwen1.5-7B: 19.5 (#237), Qwen2-72B: 22.2 (#184)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-7B | Qwen2-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1066 | 1191 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 125.27 |
Math Qwen1.5-7B leads
Qwen1.5-7B: 29.0 (#222), Qwen2-72B: 27.9 (#232)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-7B | Qwen2-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1080 | 1235 |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 39.1% |
Knowledge Qwen1.5-7B leads
Qwen1.5-7B: 28.2 (#239), Qwen2-72B: 21.2 (#270)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-7B | Qwen2-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1055 | 1171 |
| MMLU | 62.6% | 82.4% |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 40.8% |
Multilingual Qwen2-72B leads
Qwen1.5-7B: 28.6 (#266), Qwen2-72B: 36.0 (#239)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-7B | Qwen2-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1058 | 1176 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1140 | 1240 |
| LMArena Russian | 1006 | 1169 |
| LMArena French | — | 1169 |
| LMArena German | — | 1151 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1111 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1083 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1168 |
Instruction Following Qwen2-72B leads
Qwen1.5-7B: 54.4 (#276), Qwen2-72B: 62.0 (#236)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-7B | Qwen2-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1058 | 1181 |
Long Context Qwen2-72B leads
Qwen1.5-7B: 33.1 (#261), Qwen2-72B: 36.1 (#230)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-7B | Qwen2-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1090 | 1193 |
Writing & Preference Qwen2-72B leads
Qwen1.5-7B: 29.8 (#288), Qwen2-72B: 41.0 (#236)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-7B | Qwen2-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1084 | 1203 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1035 | 1181 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1061 | 1195 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Qwen1.5-7B better than Qwen2-72B?
Qwen1.5-7B is the stronger model overall, scoring 30.8 to 29.5 on the Noometry Index.
Is Qwen1.5-7B or Qwen2-72B better for coding?
Qwen1.5-7B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 31.6 versus 28.7 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Qwen1.5-7B and Qwen2-72B share?
13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen1.5-7B has 13 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2-72B has 26.