Noometry

Model comparison

Qwen2.5 7B Instruct vs QwQ-32B

QwQ-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.4 to 28.6 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 6 shared benchmarks.

Qwen2.5 7B Instruct Alibaba (Qwen)

28.6

Rank #314 Confirmed

QwQ-32B Alibaba (Qwen)

39.4

Rank #153 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 6 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen2.5 7B Instruct scores higher in 1 category and QwQ-32B in 5 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where QwQ-32B leads 36.2 to 11.8.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 2.5% for Qwen2.5 7B Instruct and 59.2% for QwQ-32B.

Side by side

Qwen2.5 7B InstructQwQ-32B
ProviderAlibaba (Qwen)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index28.639.4
Released2024-092024-11-28
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window131K—
Max output8K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.17—
Output $ / M tokens$0.70—
Results tracked1536

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen2.5 7B Instruct leads

Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 35.9 (#204), QwQ-32B: 34.9 (#220)

BenchmarkQwen2.5 7B InstructQwQ-32B
BigCodeBench Instruct37.6%44.6%
BigCodeBench Complete46.1%54.4%
Aider Polyglot—20.9%
LiveBench Coding—72.2%
LMArena Coding—1333

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 23.5 (#117), QwQ-32B: —

BenchmarkQwen2.5 7B InstructQwQ-32B
BALROG7.8%—

Reasoning QwQ-32B leads

Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 14.3 (#317), QwQ-32B: 22.9 (#171)

BenchmarkQwen2.5 7B InstructQwQ-32B
Chess Puzzles0%5%
Epoch Capabilities Index118.44137.6
LiveBench Reasoning—83.5%
LMArena Hard Prompts—1326
DTBench47.7%—
LiveBench Data Analysis—65%
LMCA6.4%—
ForecastBench—58.3
LiveBench—72%

Math QwQ-32B leads

Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 11.8 (#300), QwQ-32B: 36.2 (#123)

BenchmarkQwen2.5 7B InstructQwQ-32B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-20252.5%59.2%
Omni-MATH29.4%—
LiveBench Math—77.8%
LMArena Math—1359

Knowledge QwQ-32B leads

Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 17.0 (#281), QwQ-32B: 37.2 (#150)

BenchmarkQwen2.5 7B InstructQwQ-32B
GPQA Diamond35.5%65.3%
MMLU-Pro53.9%—
Confabulations—15.6%
GPQA (HELM)34.1%—
LMArena Expert—1323
MMLU72.9%—

Multilingual Not comparable

Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: —, QwQ-32B: 45.0 (#171)

BenchmarkQwen2.5 7B InstructQwQ-32B
LMArena Non-English—1306
LMArena Chinese—1378
LMArena French—1337
LMArena German—1313
LMArena Japanese—1263
LMArena Korean—1278
LMArena Russian—1297
LMArena Spanish—1353

Instruction Following QwQ-32B leads

Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 63.4 (#226), QwQ-32B: 72.8 (#131)

BenchmarkQwen2.5 7B InstructQwQ-32B
LiveBench Instruction Following—81.8%
IFEval74.1%—
LMArena Instruction Following—1297

Long Context Not comparable

Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: —, QwQ-32B: 49.0 (#11)

BenchmarkQwen2.5 7B InstructQwQ-32B
Fiction.LiveBench—83.3%
LMArena Longer Query—1308

Writing & Preference QwQ-32B leads

Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 48.8 (#194), QwQ-32B: 50.9 (#175)

BenchmarkQwen2.5 7B InstructQwQ-32B
LMArena Text—1329
LMArena Creative Writing—1288
Short-Story Creative Writing—80.2%
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—1257
WildBench73.1%—
LMArena Multi-Turn—1314
LiveBench Language—51.4%

Frequently asked questions

Is Qwen2.5 7B Instruct better than QwQ-32B?

QwQ-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.4 to 28.6 on the Noometry Index.

Is Qwen2.5 7B Instruct or QwQ-32B better for coding?

Qwen2.5 7B Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 35.9 versus 34.9 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Qwen2.5 7B Instruct and QwQ-32B share?

6 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen2.5 7B Instruct has 15 scored results on Noometry and QwQ-32B has 36.

Related comparisons

Go deeper