# Llama 2-70B vs Qwen1.5-7B

> Qwen1.5-7B is the stronger model overall, scoring 30.8 to 24.1 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/llama-2-70b-vs-qwen1-5-7b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 13

## Summary

- They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 2-70B scores higher in 2 categories and Qwen1.5-7B in 6 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen1.5-7B leads 29.0 to 7.5.

## Snapshot

| | Llama 2-70B | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 24.1 | 30.8 |
| Rank | 343 | 270 |
| Context | — | — |
| Input $/M | — | — |
| Output $/M | — | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Llama 2-70B: 30.8 (#281)
- Qwen1.5-7B: 31.6 (#271)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-70B | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1079 | 1107 |

## Reasoning

- Llama 2-70B: 13.7 (#324)
- Qwen1.5-7B: 19.5 (#237)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-70B | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1073 | 1066 |
| DTBench | 41.6% | — |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 64.9% | — |
| CommonsenseQA 2.0 | 50% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 113.59 | — |
| ForecastBench | 51.4 | — |
| HellaSwag | 85.3% | — |
| LAMBADA | 78.9% | — |
| PIQA | 82.8% | — |
| WinoGrande | 80.2% | — |

## Math

- Llama 2-70B: 7.5 (#320)
- Qwen1.5-7B: 29.0 (#222)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-70B | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1091 | 1080 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 0% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 3.3% | — |
| GSM8K | 69.6% | — |

## Knowledge

- Llama 2-70B: 7.4 (#305)
- Qwen1.5-7B: 28.2 (#239)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-70B | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1039 | 1055 |
| MMLU | 69.9% | 62.6% |
| GPQA Diamond | 26.3% | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 78.3% | — |
| BoolQ | 88.6% | — |
| OpenBookQA | 60.2% | — |
| TriviaQA | 87.6% | — |

## Multilingual

- Llama 2-70B: 27.9 (#269)
- Qwen1.5-7B: 28.6 (#266)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-70B | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1045 | 1058 |
| LMArena Chinese | 994 | 1140 |
| LMArena Russian | 1083 | 1006 |
| LMArena French | 1089 | — |
| LMArena German | 1041 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 927 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 964 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1142 | — |

## Instruction Following

- Llama 2-70B: 55.1 (#273)
- Qwen1.5-7B: 54.4 (#276)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-70B | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1071 | 1058 |

## Long Context

- Llama 2-70B: 32.2 (#265)
- Qwen1.5-7B: 33.1 (#261)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-70B | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1062 | 1090 |

## Writing & Preference

- Llama 2-70B: 32.5 (#274)
- Qwen1.5-7B: 29.8 (#288)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-70B | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1115 | 1084 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1075 | 1035 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1088 | 1061 |

## FAQ

### Is Llama 2-70B better than Qwen1.5-7B?

Qwen1.5-7B is the stronger model overall, scoring 30.8 to 24.1 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Llama 2-70B or Qwen1.5-7B better for coding?

They score almost the same on coding (30.8 vs 31.6); test both on your own repository before choosing.

### How many benchmarks do Llama 2-70B and Qwen1.5-7B share?

13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 2-70B has 35 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-7B has 13.