# Qwen1.5-7B vs Qwen2.5-Max

> Qwen2.5-Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.7 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/qwen1-5-7b-vs-qwen2-5-max
- Last updated: 2026-10-12
- Shared benchmarks: 12

## Summary

- They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen1.5-7B 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 55.4 to 29.6.
- Qwen1.5-7B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Qwen1.5-7B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 31.4 | 40.7 |
| Rank | 273 | 146 |
| Context | — | — |
| Input $/M | — | — |
| Output $/M | — | — |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |

## Coding

- Qwen1.5-7B: 32.2 (#276)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 41.8 (#117)

| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-7B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1107 | 1359 |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 64.4% |

## Reasoning

- Qwen1.5-7B: 20.4 (#240)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 25.6 (#147)

| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-7B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1065 | 1360 |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 51.4% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 67.9% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 132.53 |
| LiveBench | — | 62.3% |

## Math

- Qwen1.5-7B: 31.4 (#224)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 36.9 (#162)

| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-7B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1080 | 1369 |
| LiveBench Math | — | 58.4% |

## Knowledge

- Qwen1.5-7B: 28.7 (#243)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 35.3 (#186)

| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-7B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1055 | 1337 |
| Confabulations | — | 21.8% |
| MMLU | 62.6% | — |

## Multilingual

- Qwen1.5-7B: 28.5 (#271)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 48.1 (#146)

| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-7B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1058 | 1352 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1141 | 1382 |
| LMArena Russian | 1006 | 1353 |
| LMArena French | — | 1396 |
| LMArena German | — | 1350 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1300 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1304 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1377 |

## Instruction Following

- Qwen1.5-7B: 54.1 (#281)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 71.3 (#152)

| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-7B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1058 | 1335 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 75.3% |

## Long Context

- Qwen1.5-7B: 33.1 (#266)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 41.4 (#142)

| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-7B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1090 | 1358 |

## Writing & Preference

- Qwen1.5-7B: 29.6 (#293)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 55.4 (#146)

| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-7B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1083 | 1367 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1035 | 1339 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1062 | 1364 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 72.9% |
| LiveBench Language | — | 56.3% |

## FAQ

### Is Qwen1.5-7B better than Qwen2.5-Max?

Qwen2.5-Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.7 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Qwen1.5-7B or Qwen2.5-Max better for coding?

Qwen2.5-Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.8 versus 32.2 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Qwen1.5-7B and Qwen2.5-Max share?

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen1.5-7B has 13 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Max has 27.