Model comparison
Qwen2-72B vs Qwen3-1.7B
Qwen2-72B is the stronger model overall, scoring 29.5 to 26.2 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. Qwen2-72B scores higher in 3 categories and Qwen3-1.7B in 1 category; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen2-72B leads 27.9 to 15.4.
Side by side
| Qwen2-72B | Qwen3-1.7B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 29.5 | 26.2 |
| Released | 2024-06-07 | 2025-04-29 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 26 | 4 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
Qwen2-72B: 28.7 (#303), Qwen3-1.7B: —
| Benchmark | Qwen2-72B | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 11.3% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 38.5% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1196 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 54% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Qwen3-1.7B leads
Qwen2-72B: 16.9 (#138), Qwen3-1.7B: 24.5 (#108)
| Benchmark | Qwen2-72B | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 28.4% |
| TheAgentCompany | 1.1% | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 29.9% | — |
Reasoning Qwen2-72B leads
Qwen2-72B: 22.2 (#184), Qwen3-1.7B: 18.5 (#263)
| Benchmark | Qwen2-72B | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1191 | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 125.27 | — |
Math Qwen2-72B leads
Qwen2-72B: 27.9 (#232), Qwen3-1.7B: 15.4 (#288)
| Benchmark | Qwen2-72B | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 8.1% |
| LMArena Math | 1235 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 39.1% | — |
Knowledge Qwen2-72B leads
Qwen2-72B: 21.2 (#270), Qwen3-1.7B: 19.6 (#273)
| Benchmark | Qwen2-72B | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 40.8% | 38% |
| LMArena Expert | 1171 | — |
| MMLU | 82.4% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Qwen2-72B: 36.0 (#239), Qwen3-1.7B: —
| Benchmark | Qwen2-72B | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1176 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1240 | — |
| LMArena French | 1169 | — |
| LMArena German | 1151 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1111 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1083 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1169 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1168 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Qwen2-72B: 62.0 (#236), Qwen3-1.7B: —
| Benchmark | Qwen2-72B | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1181 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Qwen2-72B: 36.1 (#230), Qwen3-1.7B: —
| Benchmark | Qwen2-72B | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1193 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Qwen2-72B: 41.0 (#236), Qwen3-1.7B: —
| Benchmark | Qwen2-72B | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1203 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1181 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1195 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Qwen2-72B better than Qwen3-1.7B?
Qwen2-72B is the stronger model overall, scoring 29.5 to 26.2 on the Noometry Index.
How many benchmarks do Qwen2-72B and Qwen3-1.7B share?
1 benchmark has published results for both models. Qwen2-72B has 26 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3-1.7B has 4.