Qwen 2.5 72B vs LLaMA 3.1 70B
Comprehensive comparison of two leading open-source AI models
Qwen 2.5 72B
ProviderAlibaba Cloud
Parameters72B
KYI Score8.9/10
LicenseApache 2.0
LLaMA 3.1 70B
ProviderMeta
Parameters70B
KYI Score9.1/10
LicenseLLaMA 3.1 Community License
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Feature | Qwen 2.5 72B | LLaMA 3.1 70B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba Cloud | Meta |
| Parameters | 72B | 70B |
| KYI Score | 8.9/10 | 9.1/10 |
| Speed | 7/10 | 7/10 |
| Quality | 9/10 | 9/10 |
| Cost Efficiency | 9/10 | 9/10 |
| License | Apache 2.0 | LLaMA 3.1 Community License |
| Context Length | 128K tokens | 128K tokens |
| Pricing | free | free |
Performance Comparison
SpeedHigher is better
Qwen 2.5 72B7/10
LLaMA 3.1 70B7/10
QualityHigher is better
Qwen 2.5 72B9/10
LLaMA 3.1 70B9/10
Cost EffectivenessHigher is better
Qwen 2.5 72B9/10
LLaMA 3.1 70B9/10
Qwen 2.5 72B Strengths
- ✓Best-in-class Chinese support
- ✓Strong multilingual
- ✓Long context
- ✓Versatile
Qwen 2.5 72B Limitations
- ✗Less known in Western markets
- ✗Documentation primarily in Chinese
LLaMA 3.1 70B Strengths
- ✓Great performance-to-size ratio
- ✓Production-ready
- ✓Versatile
- ✓Cost-effective
LLaMA 3.1 70B Limitations
- ✗Slightly lower quality than 405B
- ✗Still requires substantial resources
Best Use Cases
Qwen 2.5 72B
Multilingual applicationsAsian language tasksCode generationTranslation
LLaMA 3.1 70B
ChatbotsContent generationCode assistanceAnalysisSummarization
Which Should You Choose?
Choose Qwen 2.5 72B if you need best-in-class chinese support and prioritize strong multilingual.
Choose LLaMA 3.1 70B if you need great performance-to-size ratio and prioritize production-ready.