# Llama 2-70B vs Qwen2.5 7B Instruct

> Qwen2.5 7B Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 28.6 to 24.1 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/llama-2-70b-vs-qwen2-5-7b-instruct
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 5

## Summary

- They share 5 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 2-70B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct in 6 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen2.5 7B Instruct leads 48.8 to 32.5.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 26.3% for Llama 2-70B and 35.5% for Qwen2.5 7B Instruct.

## Snapshot

| | Llama 2-70B | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 24.1 | 28.6 |
| Rank | 343 | 314 |
| Context | — | 131K |
| Input $/M | — | $0.17 |
| Output $/M | — | $0.70 |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Llama 2-70B: 30.8 (#281)
- Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 35.9 (#204)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-70B | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 37.6% |
| LMArena Coding | 1079 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 46.1% |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Llama 2-70B: —
- Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 23.5 (#117)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-70B | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| BALROG | — | 7.8% |

## Reasoning

- Llama 2-70B: 13.7 (#324)
- Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 14.3 (#317)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-70B | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| DTBench | 41.6% | 47.7% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 113.59 | 118.44 |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1073 | — |
| LMCA | — | 6.4% |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 64.9% | — |
| CommonsenseQA 2.0 | 50% | — |
| ForecastBench | 51.4 | — |
| HellaSwag | 85.3% | — |
| LAMBADA | 78.9% | — |
| PIQA | 82.8% | — |
| WinoGrande | 80.2% | — |

## Math

- Llama 2-70B: 7.5 (#320)
- Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 11.8 (#300)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-70B | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 0% | 2.5% |
| Omni-MATH | — | 29.4% |
| LMArena Math | 1091 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 3.3% | — |
| GSM8K | 69.6% | — |

## Knowledge

- Llama 2-70B: 7.4 (#305)
- Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 17.0 (#281)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-70B | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 26.3% | 35.5% |
| MMLU | 69.9% | 72.9% |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 53.9% |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 34.1% |
| LMArena Expert | 1039 | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 78.3% | — |
| BoolQ | 88.6% | — |
| OpenBookQA | 60.2% | — |
| TriviaQA | 87.6% | — |

## Multilingual

- Llama 2-70B: 27.9 (#269)
- Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: —

| Benchmark | Llama 2-70B | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1045 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 994 | — |
| LMArena French | 1089 | — |
| LMArena German | 1041 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 927 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 964 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1083 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1142 | — |

## Instruction Following

- Llama 2-70B: 55.1 (#273)
- Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 63.4 (#226)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-70B | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| IFEval | — | 74.1% |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1071 | — |

## Long Context

- Llama 2-70B: 32.2 (#265)
- Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: —

| Benchmark | Llama 2-70B | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1062 | — |

## Writing & Preference

- Llama 2-70B: 32.5 (#274)
- Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 48.8 (#194)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-70B | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1115 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1075 | — |
| WildBench | — | 73.1% |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1088 | — |

## FAQ

### Is Llama 2-70B better than Qwen2.5 7B Instruct?

Qwen2.5 7B Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 28.6 to 24.1 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Llama 2-70B or Qwen2.5 7B Instruct better for coding?

Qwen2.5 7B Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 35.9 versus 30.8 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Llama 2-70B and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct share?

5 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 2-70B has 35 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct has 15.