# Llama 2-7B vs Qwen2.5-Max

> Qwen2.5-Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.1 to 28.6 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/llama-2-7b-vs-qwen2-5-max
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 16

## Summary

- They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 2-7B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen2.5-Max in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen2.5-Max leads 55.6 to 28.1.
- Llama 2-7B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Llama 2-7B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 28.6 | 40.1 |
| Rank | 315 | 142 |
| Context | — | — |
| Input $/M | — | — |
| Output $/M | — | — |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |

## Coding

- Llama 2-7B: 28.7 (#302)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 41.2 (#118)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1002 | 1359 |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 64.4% |

## Reasoning

- Llama 2-7B: 15.1 (#309)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 24.6 (#144)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1009 | 1360 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 98.54 | 132.54 |
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 51.4% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 67.9% |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 39.2% | — |
| HellaSwag | 77.2% | — |
| LAMBADA | 73.3% | — |
| LiveBench | — | 62.3% |
| PIQA | 78.8% | — |
| WinoGrande | 69.2% | — |

## Math

- Llama 2-7B: 28.2 (#231)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 34.3 (#162)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1042 | 1369 |
| LiveBench Math | — | 58.4% |
| GSM8K | 16.7% | — |

## Knowledge

- Llama 2-7B: 27.7 (#243)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 34.8 (#181)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1036 | 1337 |
| Confabulations | — | 21.8% |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 45.9% | — |
| BoolQ | 77.9% | — |
| MMLU | 45.8% | — |
| OpenBookQA | 58.6% | — |
| TriviaQA | 73.7% | — |

## Multimodal

- Llama 2-7B: —
- Qwen2.5-Max: —

| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| ScienceQA | 43.1% | — |

## Multilingual

- Llama 2-7B: 23.9 (#288)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 48.3 (#140)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 973 | 1352 |
| LMArena Chinese | 973 | 1382 |
| LMArena French | 969 | 1396 |
| LMArena German | 978 | 1350 |
| LMArena Russian | 995 | 1353 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1007 | 1377 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1299 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1304 |

## Instruction Following

- Llama 2-7B: 51.0 (#293)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 71.5 (#147)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1006 | 1335 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 75.3% |

## Long Context

- Llama 2-7B: 30.4 (#282)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 41.3 (#137)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 999 | 1358 |

## Writing & Preference

- Llama 2-7B: 28.1 (#293)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 55.6 (#141)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1053 | 1367 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1033 | 1339 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1029 | 1364 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 72.9% |
| LiveBench Language | — | 56.3% |

## FAQ

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

Qwen2.5-Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.1 to 28.6 on the Noometry Index.

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

Qwen2.5-Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.2 versus 28.7 in the Noometry coding category.

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

16 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 2-7B has 29 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Max has 27.