# Llama 3.1-70B vs Qwen2.5 Plus 1127

> Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/llama-3-1-70b-vs-qwen2-5-plus
- Last updated: 2026-10-12
- Shared benchmarks: 14

## Summary

- They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 3.1-70B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads 36.1 to 13.5.
- Llama 3.1-70B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Llama 3.1-70B | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 29.6 | 38.8 |
| Rank | 308 | 181 |
| Context | 128K | — |
| Input $/M | $0.40 | — |
| Output $/M | $0.40 | — |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |

## Coding

- Llama 3.1-70B: 30.3 (#296)
- Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 38.5 (#175)

| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-70B | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1260 | 1314 |
| WeirdML | 9% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 46.1% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 54.8% | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Llama 3.1-70B: 25.1 (#112)
- Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: —

| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-70B | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| TheAgentCompany | 6.9% | — |
| BALROG | 27.9% | — |

## Reasoning

- Llama 3.1-70B: 21.6 (#220)
- Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 25.9 (#141)

| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-70B | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1241 | 1299 |
| DTBench | 60% | — |
| LMCA | 14.8% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 125.92 | — |

## Math

- Llama 3.1-70B: 13.5 (#304)
- Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 36.1 (#174)

| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-70B | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1252 | 1298 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 3.6% | — |
| Omni-MATH | 21% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 36.7% | — |

## Knowledge

- Llama 3.1-70B: 24.2 (#269)
- Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 35.5 (#183)

| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-70B | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1209 | 1289 |
| GPQA Diamond | 44.2% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 65.3% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 42.6% | — |
| MMLU | 80.1% | — |

## Multilingual

- Llama 3.1-70B: 38.8 (#225)
- Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 41.9 (#201)

| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-70B | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1219 | 1265 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1215 | 1314 |
| LMArena German | 1222 | 1231 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1132 | 1207 |
| LMArena Russian | 1234 | 1271 |
| LMArena French | 1261 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1140 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1253 | — |

## Instruction Following

- Llama 3.1-70B: 65.3 (#223)
- Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 67.2 (#199)

| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-70B | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1231 | 1275 |
| IFEval | 82.1% | — |

## Long Context

- Llama 3.1-70B: 37.6 (#214)
- Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 39.2 (#184)

| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-70B | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1241 | 1292 |

## Writing & Preference

- Llama 3.1-70B: 35.4 (#267)
- Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 49.4 (#192)

| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-70B | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1261 | 1299 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1232 | 1262 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1256 | 1299 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 784 | — |
| WildBench | 75.8% | — |

## FAQ

### Is Llama 3.1-70B better than Qwen2.5 Plus 1127?

Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Llama 3.1-70B or Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 better for coding?

Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.5 versus 30.3 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Llama 3.1-70B and Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 share?

14 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 3.1-70B has 35 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 has 14.