Model comparison

Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 vs Qwen3 8B

Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.1 to 33.3 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.

Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 Alibaba (Qwen)

38.1

Rank #179 Confirmed

Qwen3 8B Alibaba (Qwen)

33.3

Rank #237 Confirmed

Summary

  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads 24.8 to 16.1.
  • Qwen3 8B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 and Qwen3 8B specifications
Qwen2.5 Plus 1127Qwen3 8B
ProviderAlibaba (Qwen)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index38.133.3
Released—2025-04
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window—131K
Max output—8K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.18
Output $ / M tokens—$0.70
Results tracked1411

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads

Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 37.9 (#171), Qwen3 8B: 33.4 (#245)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5 Plus 1127Qwen3 8B
SciCode—22.6%
LMArena Coding1314—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: —, Qwen3 8B: 29.9 (#71)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5 Plus 1127Qwen3 8B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—42.6%

Reasoning Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads

Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 24.8 (#139), Qwen3 8B: 16.1 (#299)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5 Plus 1127Qwen3 8B
CritPt—0%
Chess Puzzles—5%
LMArena Hard Prompts1299—
DTBench—59.7%
LMCA—8.8%
Epoch Capabilities Index—136.17

Math Too close to call

Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 33.5 (#175), Qwen3 8B: 33.3 (#176)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5 Plus 1127Qwen3 8B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—56.1%
LMArena Math1298—

Knowledge Qwen3 8B leads

Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 34.9 (#179), Qwen3 8B: 36.1 (#164)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5 Plus 1127Qwen3 8B
GPQA Diamond—56.8%
Vectara Hallucination Rate—4.8%
LMArena Expert1289—

Multilingual Not comparable

Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 42.1 (#196), Qwen3 8B: —

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5 Plus 1127Qwen3 8B
LMArena Non-English1265—
LMArena Chinese1314—
LMArena German1231—
LMArena Japanese1207—
LMArena Russian1271—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 67.4 (#194), Qwen3 8B: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5 Plus 1127Qwen3 8B
LMArena Instruction Following1275—

Long Context Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads

Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 39.2 (#180), Qwen3 8B: 37.8 (#205)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5 Plus 1127Qwen3 8B
Fiction.LiveBench—62.1%
LMArena Longer Query1292—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 49.5 (#186), Qwen3 8B: —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5 Plus 1127Qwen3 8B
LMArena Text1299—
LMArena Creative Writing1262—
LMArena Multi-Turn1299—

Frequently asked questions

Is Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 better than Qwen3 8B?

Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.1 to 33.3 on the Noometry Index.

Is Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 or Qwen3 8B better for coding?

Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.9 versus 33.4 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 and Qwen3 8B share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 has 14 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 8B has 11.

Related comparisons

Go deeper