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

> Qwen1.5-7B is the stronger model overall, scoring 30.8 to 28.6 on the Noometry Index.

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

## Summary

- They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 2-7B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen1.5-7B in 8 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in multilingual, where Qwen1.5-7B leads 28.6 to 23.9.

## Snapshot

| | Llama 2-7B | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 28.6 | 30.8 |
| Rank | 315 | 270 |
| Context | — | — |
| Input $/M | — | — |
| Output $/M | — | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Llama 2-7B: 28.7 (#302)
- Qwen1.5-7B: 31.6 (#271)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1002 | 1107 |

## Reasoning

- Llama 2-7B: 15.1 (#309)
- Qwen1.5-7B: 19.5 (#237)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1009 | 1066 |
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | — |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 39.2% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 98.54 | — |
| HellaSwag | 77.2% | — |
| LAMBADA | 73.3% | — |
| PIQA | 78.8% | — |
| WinoGrande | 69.2% | — |

## Math

- Llama 2-7B: 28.2 (#231)
- Qwen1.5-7B: 29.0 (#222)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1042 | 1080 |
| GSM8K | 16.7% | — |

## Knowledge

- Llama 2-7B: 27.7 (#243)
- Qwen1.5-7B: 28.2 (#239)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1036 | 1055 |
| MMLU | 45.8% | 62.6% |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 45.9% | — |
| BoolQ | 77.9% | — |
| OpenBookQA | 58.6% | — |
| TriviaQA | 73.7% | — |

## Multimodal

- Llama 2-7B: —
- Qwen1.5-7B: —

| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| ScienceQA | 43.1% | — |

## Multilingual

- Llama 2-7B: 23.9 (#288)
- Qwen1.5-7B: 28.6 (#266)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 973 | 1058 |
| LMArena Chinese | 973 | 1140 |
| LMArena Russian | 995 | 1006 |
| LMArena French | 969 | — |
| LMArena German | 978 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1007 | — |

## Instruction Following

- Llama 2-7B: 51.0 (#293)
- Qwen1.5-7B: 54.4 (#276)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1006 | 1058 |

## Long Context

- Llama 2-7B: 30.4 (#282)
- Qwen1.5-7B: 33.1 (#261)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 999 | 1090 |

## Writing & Preference

- Llama 2-7B: 28.1 (#293)
- Qwen1.5-7B: 29.8 (#288)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1053 | 1084 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1033 | 1035 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1029 | 1061 |

## FAQ

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

Qwen1.5-7B is the stronger model overall, scoring 30.8 to 28.6 on the Noometry Index.

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

Qwen1.5-7B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 31.6 versus 28.7 in the Noometry coding category.

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

13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 2-7B has 29 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-7B has 13.