Model comparison
Qwen2.5-Max vs Wizardlm 13b
Qwen2.5-Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.7 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 10 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)
MicrosoftSummary
- They share 10 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen2.5-Max 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 Qwen2.5-Max leads 55.4 to 30.5.
- Wizardlm 13b has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Qwen2.5-Max | Wizardlm 13b | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | Microsoft |
| Noometry Index | 40.7 | 31.4 |
| Released | 2025-01-25 | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 27 | 10 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen2.5-Max leads
Qwen2.5-Max: 41.8 (#117), Wizardlm 13b: 30.1 (#298)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5-Max | Wizardlm 13b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1359 | 1035 |
| LiveBench Coding | 64.4% | — |
Reasoning Qwen2.5-Max leads
Qwen2.5-Max: 25.6 (#147), Wizardlm 13b: 19.4 (#259)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5-Max | Wizardlm 13b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1360 | 1018 |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 51.4% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 67.9% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 132.53 | — |
| LiveBench | 62.3% | — |
Math Qwen2.5-Max leads
Qwen2.5-Max: 36.9 (#162), Wizardlm 13b: 30.2 (#238)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5-Max | Wizardlm 13b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1369 | 1017 |
| LiveBench Math | 58.4% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Qwen2.5-Max: 35.3 (#186), Wizardlm 13b: —
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5-Max | Wizardlm 13b |
|---|---|---|
| Confabulations | 21.8% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1337 | — |
Multilingual Qwen2.5-Max leads
Qwen2.5-Max: 48.1 (#146), Wizardlm 13b: 27.1 (#277)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5-Max | Wizardlm 13b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1352 | 1034 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1382 | 1023 |
| LMArena French | 1396 | — |
| LMArena German | 1350 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1300 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1304 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1353 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1377 | — |
Instruction Following Qwen2.5-Max leads
Qwen2.5-Max: 71.3 (#152), Wizardlm 13b: 53.5 (#285)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5-Max | Wizardlm 13b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1335 | 1048 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 75.3% | — |
Long Context Qwen2.5-Max leads
Qwen2.5-Max: 41.4 (#142), Wizardlm 13b: 32.0 (#273)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5-Max | Wizardlm 13b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1358 | 1054 |
Writing & Preference Qwen2.5-Max leads
Qwen2.5-Max: 55.4 (#146), Wizardlm 13b: 30.5 (#287)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5-Max | Wizardlm 13b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1367 | 1077 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1339 | 1091 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1364 | 1047 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 72.9% | — |
| LiveBench Language | 56.3% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Qwen2.5-Max better than Wizardlm 13b?
Qwen2.5-Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.7 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.
Is Qwen2.5-Max or Wizardlm 13b better for coding?
Qwen2.5-Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.8 versus 30.1 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Qwen2.5-Max and Wizardlm 13b share?
10 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen2.5-Max has 27 scored results on Noometry and Wizardlm 13b has 10.