Model comparison
Qwen2-72B vs Sonar
Sonar is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.5 to 30.0 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)
PerplexitySummary
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Sonar leads 52.6 to 40.8.
- Qwen2-72B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Qwen2-72B | Sonar | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | Perplexity |
| Noometry Index | 30.0 | 38.5 |
| Released | 2024-06-07 | 2024-01-01 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | — | 128K |
| Max output | — | 4K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $1 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $1 |
| Results tracked | 26 | 7 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Sonar leads
Qwen2-72B: 29.1 (#310), Sonar: 35.7 (#221)
| Benchmark | Qwen2-72B | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 11.3% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 38.5% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 35.1% |
| LMArena Coding | 1196 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 54% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Qwen2-72B: 17.0 (#146), Sonar: —
| Benchmark | Qwen2-72B | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| TheAgentCompany | 1.1% | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 29.9% | — |
Reasoning Qwen2-72B leads
Qwen2-72B: 23.2 (#181), Sonar: 21.1 (#227)
| Benchmark | Qwen2-72B | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 46.3% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1191 | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 37.9% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 125.28 | — |
| LiveBench | — | 46.9% |
Math Sonar leads
Qwen2-72B: 30.2 (#236), Sonar: 33.7 (#200)
| Benchmark | Qwen2-72B | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Math | — | 41.6% |
| LMArena Math | 1235 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 39.1% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Qwen2-72B: 21.2 (#275), Sonar: —
| Benchmark | Qwen2-72B | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 40.8% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1171 | — |
| MMLU | 82.4% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Qwen2-72B: 35.9 (#244), Sonar: —
| Benchmark | Qwen2-72B | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1176 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1240 | — |
| LMArena French | 1170 | — |
| LMArena German | 1151 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1111 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1083 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1169 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1169 | — |
Instruction Following Sonar leads
Qwen2-72B: 61.7 (#241), Sonar: 71.4 (#150)
| Benchmark | Qwen2-72B | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 76.2% |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1181 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Qwen2-72B: 36.1 (#235), Sonar: —
| Benchmark | Qwen2-72B | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1192 | — |
Writing & Preference Sonar leads
Qwen2-72B: 40.8 (#241), Sonar: 52.6 (#167)
| Benchmark | Qwen2-72B | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1203 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1181 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1196 | — |
| LiveBench Language | — | 44.1% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Qwen2-72B better than Sonar?
Sonar is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.5 to 30.0 on the Noometry Index.
Is Qwen2-72B or Sonar better for coding?
Sonar scores higher on coding benchmarks: 35.7 versus 29.1 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Qwen2-72B and Sonar share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen2-72B has 26 scored results on Noometry and Sonar has 7.