Model comparison
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct vs Qwen2.5 Plus 1127
Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.1 to 28.6 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads 33.5 to 11.8.
- Qwen2.5 7B Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Qwen2.5 7B Instruct | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 28.6 | 38.1 |
| Released | 2024-09 | — |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 131K | — |
| Max output | 8K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.17 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.70 | — |
| Results tracked | 15 | 14 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 35.9 (#204), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 37.9 (#171)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 37.6% | — |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1314 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 46.1% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 23.5 (#117), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: —
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| BALROG | 7.8% | — |
Reasoning Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 14.3 (#317), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 24.8 (#139)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1299 |
| DTBench | 47.7% | — |
| LMCA | 6.4% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 118.44 | — |
Math Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 11.8 (#300), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 33.5 (#175)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 2.5% | — |
| Omni-MATH | 29.4% | — |
| LMArena Math | — | 1298 |
Knowledge Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 17.0 (#281), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 34.9 (#179)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 35.5% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 53.9% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 34.1% | — |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1289 |
| MMLU | 72.9% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: —, Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 42.1 (#196)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1265 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1314 |
| LMArena German | — | 1231 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1207 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1271 |
Instruction Following Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 63.4 (#226), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 67.4 (#194)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| IFEval | 74.1% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1275 |
Long Context Not comparable
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: —, Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 39.2 (#180)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1292 |
Writing & Preference Too close to call
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 48.8 (#194), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 49.5 (#186)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1299 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1262 |
| WildBench | 73.1% | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1299 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Qwen2.5 7B Instruct better than Qwen2.5 Plus 1127?
Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.1 to 28.6 on the Noometry Index.
Is Qwen2.5 7B Instruct or Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 better for coding?
Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.9 versus 35.9 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Qwen2.5 7B Instruct and Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen2.5 7B Instruct has 15 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 has 14.